French candidate suspended after his vile anti-Faurisson tweet is mistaken for ‘anti-semitism’!

Joseph Martin, suspended by the RN for ‘anti-semitism’, was in fact an ‘anti-fascist’!

The hysteria of Holocaustianity – otherwise known as ‘Shoah business’ – has claimed a new victim: and this time, with rich irony, it’s an ‘anti-fascist’ who has fallen victim to ‘friendly fire’.

Joseph Martin, a parliamentary candidate for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) in the current elections for the French National Assembly, was suspended by his party yesterday after a confected scandal over a supposedly satirical tweet.

Martin – who was born in Spain as José Martinez Lopez, but came to France as a child – was standing for the RN in an area of Brittany.

The communist newspaper Libération complained about a tweet that Martin posted in October 2018 that (when read out of contact) appeared to mock ‘Holocaust’ victims.

In fact Martin had intended his tweet (posted more than five and a half years ago and hurriedly deleted yesterday) as a vile ‘satirical’ attack on the revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson, who had just died at the instant of returning home from a conference in London organised by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

With their typical urgent insistence on genuflecting to the Jewish lobby, Marine Le Pen’s party has censured and expelled an ‘anti-fascist’ – when they thought they were censuring and expelling an ‘anti-semite’!

No doubt somewhere, the spirit of Robert Faurisson is enjoying this absurd spectacle.

Solsticial greetings from H&D!

The editor and staff of Heritage and Destiny wish all readers a very happy Summer Solstice today.

Europeans have celebrated this day since Neolithic times, marking the turning point of the year and its longest day.

Whatever your religion (or lack of religion), the Solstice is a time when we are in touch with our ancestors, and when we renew our commitment to preserve European identity.

At this time we also pay tribute to the astonishing ingenuity of our ancestors in creating monuments associated with the Solstice, notably Stonehenge in Wiltshire, whose construction began more than 5,000 years ago.

This year the Solstice happens to coincide with the European football championships, though how European some of the ‘national’ teams are is very questionable!

It also coincides with a UK General Election campaign, on which H&D will be reporting further in the next few days.

For electoral and other reasons, as Europe faces military assault from the Kremlin and cultural assault from within, it would be easy to despair.

But the Solstice reminds us that our culture has survived many threats. Europeans have a great future as well as a great past. All we need is the will to assert our identity: pride in the achievements and continuing potential of our race.

Is Le Pen on verge of power?


Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron before their presidential debate in 2022: is it now possible that Macron might have to share power with a Prime Minister Le Pen?!?

It’s difficult to keep up with rapid developments in French politics this week.

After predictable success in last weekend’s Euro-election for Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration party National Rally (RN), France’s ‘centrist’ president Emmanuel Macron called a snap parliamentary election.

British readers need to understand that the French constitution is halfway between ours and the American system. As in the USA, the President is elected separately from the Assembly, and it’s not uncommon for a President to have to ‘cohabit’ with a Prime Minister and a majority group in the Assembly who belong to a rival party or parties.

However, unlike a US President who has no choice but to cope with whatever Congress gets elected (aside from his right to veto legislation), a French President can (like a UK Prime Minister, though the latter theoretically requires the King’s permission) dissolve the Assembly and call fresh elections. Whatever happens, the President rather than the Prime Minister retains ultimate control over certain policy areas, such as defence and foreign policy, including control of nuclear weapons.


Marion Maréchal with her grandfather, FN founder Jean-Marie Le Pen. Early indications are that the 2024 election campaign might see the Le Pen dynasty reunified, though Jean-Marie Le Pen will be 96 next month and is now too frail to take an active role in politics.

Macron was landed in 2022 with an Assembly that is unmanageable, due to large blocs from the ultra-left NUPES alliance as well as Le Pen’s RN.

His decision to dissolve the Assembly despite Le Pen’s recent successes and opinion poll leads, isn’t as crazy as it seems.

For one thing, Macron has little to lose. He couldn’t govern effectively via the old Assembly, so he might as well ‘go for broke’ and risk an Assembly dominated by the ‘far right’.

A further consideration is that the far left might now be fragmenting. For several years the pre-eminent leftist leader has been Jean-Luc Mélenchon, but a combination of the old socialist’s authoritarian leadership style and his Putinist foreign policy is leading rival leftists and greens to rebel against him.

Due to the two-round electoral system and the consequent pressure for horse-trading between factions, it’s not at all certain what type of left-wing slates will be agreed. However it’s already fairly obvious that there will be a shift on the left away from Mélenchon’s irreconcilable stance, towards people and policies that might conceivably favour coalition with pro-Macron forces.

Meanwhile the mainstream right has fallen apart. Éric Ciotti, leader of the ‘centre-right’ Republicans, has split from other leading figures in his own party by advocating a deal with Le Pen. As Macron was quick to point out, any such deal seems impractical where economic policy is concerned. The Republicans’ attitude to tax and government spending ought to be far closer to Macron than to Le Pen, because the RN has moved sharply to the ‘left’ in such areas and defends the old-fashioned French ‘big state’, whereas the Republicans in recent years have shifted away from the Gaullist legacy and become more like Anglo-American fiscal conservatives.

The question as ever is – how far will French middle-class voters be prepared to accept a hit to their bank balances (including the necessity to pay higher wages to French workers as well as funding the welfare state) in return for a sincere anti-immigration policy and a tougher stance on law and order?


Marine Le Pen surrounded by non-White supporters of her RN party

Which brings us to Le Pen herself, and rival forces on the ‘far right’.

Many H&D readers will have been appalled by Le Pen’s multiracial approach. Yes, she favours much stricter immigration controls – but she is far from being a racial nationalist. We must recognise that the traditions of the French right are very different from ours. Even under the RN’s previous incarnation – the Front National led by Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen – the party accepted non-White members, and in recent years the RN has gone down this route with added enthusiasm.

A further factor has been Marine Le Pen’s obsessive genuflection to Israel, which is shared by most of today’s mainstream European ‘far right’.

Nevertheless, we have to recognise that a Le Pen government would in some ways be a giant step forward, bringing anti-immigration politics not only into the mainstream but into government.

It would raise expectations among French voters and among their fellow Europeans, and (if radical movements organise themselves seriously) can be a first step towards a more genuinely racial nationalist approach: a Europe for Europeans.

Moreover, Le Pen has in recent weeks taken one very important step to clean up European nationalism. She has taken a firm stand against the Putinist corruption that infests nationalist circles throughout the West. By expelling her German counterparts AfD from the Identity and Democracy group that her party dominates in the European Parliament, she has drawn a clear line indicating that Putinism is intrinsically anti-European and unacceptable.


Éric Zemmour, the Kremlin’s favourite French politician and Marine Le Pen’s rival for leadership of the ‘far right’, has seen his Reconquête party collapse within the first few days of the election campaign.

Within days of the Assembly election being called, the Putinist wing of French nationalism – the Reconquête party led by Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour – collapsed. Zemmour’s effective deputy Marion Maréchal (who happens to be Marine Le Pen’s niece but has long been at odds with her aunt) was open to the idea of an electoral pact between the RN and Reconquête to maximise the right’s chances of entering government.

Zemmour was horrified. He swiftly expelled Ms Maréchal from his party, calling her a traitor. This extreme reaction perhaps owed something to Zemmour’s partner Sarah Knafo (also Jewish), who like Ms Maréchal is a newly elected MEP and who undoubtedly exerts great influence over the party leader.

With the election campaign only a few days old we have seen two parties collapse: Reconquête and the centre-right Republicans. For equal and opposite reasons both Macron and Marine Le Pen will be satisfied with the way things have gone so far.

It promises to be one of the most interesting elections in European history, and perhaps a turning point for our movement (broadly defined).

European right advances, but what does the ‘right’ now stand for?

Several anti-immigration parties increased their votes substantially in the European Parliamentary elections, where votes were counted overnight on Sunday and Monday. Results in Ireland are still awaited, but as we explain elsewhere on this site, it’s already clear that the radical wing of the Irish anti-immigration movement has failed to fulfil expectations.

H&D has published the most detailed analysis of the Europe-wide results from a non-party, nationalist perspective. Click here to read our report, which will be updated once the full Irish results become available.

As explained in the forthcoming issue of our magazine, the most important aspect of these European elections is not so much the result for individual parties in particular countries, but whether it will be possible to build a cross-party alliance in the European Parliament that is able to exert meaningful pressure on immigration policy and related matters.

Key problems here include bitter divisions among European nationalists (partly though not exclusively related to different attitudes to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine), as well as the underlying reality that the European Parliament has limited powers even over European Union institutions.

That’s why we have described last night’s results as a matter of protest, rather than power.

Nevertheless, these votes are a heartening indication of the tide of opinion among Europeans, especially among younger voters.

Tomorrow belongs to us!

Anti-immigration parties advance in European elections: but this is protest, not power

Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the RN achieved some of yesterday’s best results for anti-immigration parties

Broadly as predicted, anti-immigration parties from what the media term the ‘far right’ have made big advances at the European Parliamentary elections – though the biggest winners overall were conservative parties; the ‘far right’ itself doesn’t exist as a coherent force; and the European Parliament has very limited powers.

[Please note that some of the statistics below might be altered very slightly as final checks are made to election counts. Ireland’s results are not yet available but we shall report on them later today.]

First the good news. In France, Marine Le Pen’s RN (successor to the National Front) was easily the largest party overnight with 31.4%, ahead of President Macron’s ‘centrist’ party on 14.6%, and the slowly recovering Socialists on 13.8%. The far-left party France Insoumise is now obviously in decline after several years as the leading force on the French left: they polled 9.9%. And France still has the weakest mainstream conservative party in Europe – the Republicans, who took just 7.2%.

France is one of the few European countries that has not just one but two electorally credible ‘far right’ parties. In fact until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it had seemed likely that the new Reconquête party led by the Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen’s niece Marion Maréchal, would overtake Le Pen’s party. However, while Le Pen swiftly condemned Putin, Zemmour found it much more difficult to escape the electoral consequences of his earlier Putinism, and his party swiftly declined.

Reconquête are both harder line than RN against immigration (especially against Islam) and more traditionally conservative (in an Anglo-American, quasi-Thatcherite sense) on economic matters, while Le Pen has taken her party onto quasi-socialist turf and has become the natural leader of French workers.

This week Zemmour and Maréchal were (just about) able to celebrate. Together with the Greens, they just scraped over the 5% threshold and will have five MEPs, including both Maréchal and Zemmour’s partner Sarah Knafo.

Within hours of polls closing, President Macron called a snap general election. This will of course be a parliamentary not presidential election, since under the French system Macron will remain in office as President (and ultimately in control of foreign policy etc.) regardless of who becomes Prime Minister. But there is now a very real (though outside) possibility that Marine Le Pen will be Prime Minister of France within a few weeks.

While France continues to demonstrate the electoral toxicity of Putinism, it’s a very different story in Germany, where two blatantly pro-Moscow parties polled very well. AfD (Alternative for Germany) was originally a Thatcherite conservative party, but quickly became an anti-immigration party in opposition to the treachery of former Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This week, despite various scandals that have beset the party leadership with (for once) justified media exposés of their shady connections to both China and Russia, AfD polled 15.9% and overtook Chancellor Olof Scholz’s party SPD who fell to 13.9%. The mainstream conservative alliance CDU-CSU were easily the largest force with 30%, while the Greens (Scholz’s coalition partners) fell to 11.9%.

Very predictably the Homeland Party (which is the renamed NPD, Germany’s oldest surviving nationalist party) collapsed even further to a record low of 0.1% (27th of the 35 party lists, down among the joke and ego-trip parties). The good news is that the old NPD / Homeland is disappearing. The radical challenge to the corrupt AfD in future will come from the new party Dritte Weg, a party which stands for traditional nationalism, rejects Putinism, and is attracting growing numbers of young activists, though of course it didn’t contest the European election and is just at the stage of beginning to fight local and regional campaigns.

AfD leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla celebrating last night

Another interesting development was the collapse of the Left Party (Die Linke, which was formed soon after the semi-reunification of Germany in the 1990s as an alliance of old communists and hardline socialists) to only 2.7%. Luckily for them Germany, unlike France, has no electoral threshold – so they will retain three MEPs, at least until 2029 when a new threshold system will be introduced.

Most of the old Left Party vote went to a new party created by one of their former leaders, the half-Iranian Sahra Wagenknecht, who is a long-term Russian asset and unsurprisingly shares AfD’s Putinism, while taking a Stalinist line in other policy areas.

Wagenknecht’s party polled 6.2% nationwide and was especially strong in parts of the former East Germany. In Thuringia, for example, AfD was the largest party with 30.7%, while Wagenknecht’s BSW polled 15%.

One consequence of AfD’s pro-Moscow stance is that it will have few friends in the new Parliament, having been shunned by most other anti-immigration / nationalist parties.

H&D will report further in the coming weeks and months on the reshaping of the European right.

In the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen’s allies in the PVV (Freedom Party), led by Geert Wilders, finished second with 17.7%, a huge advance on its disappointing European election performance five years ago, though slightly down on their 23.5% in last year’s Dutch general election.

The rival Dutch nationalist party FvD (Forum for Democracy) whose leader Thierry Baudet once seemed a credible successor to Wilders as an anti-immigration leader but rapidly declined into fringe conspiracy theories and Putinism, collapsed from 11% to 2.5% and will no longer have any MEPs.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders casting his vote

In Belgium, the Flemish nationalist Vlaams Belang (another important Le Pen ally) might have emerged the largest single party in one of Europe’s most politically fragmented countries, though final results are not yet clear. VB polled 13.9% but there were also big gains for the more ‘moderate’ Flemish nationalist/conservative party N-VA (New Flemish Alliance) who are only a fraction behind VB and in final results might yet overtake them.

Austria saw a historic success for another Le Pen ally, the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), who in a close three-way split have emerged as the largest party with 25.7%. Despite this victory, if they wish to be influential in the new Parliament they will have to watch their step on foreign policy, as Le Pen and her allies have indicated they will be utterly ruthless in expelling any party that discredits the anti-immigration cause by getting too close to Moscow.

In Italy, Giorgia Meloni – the effective leader of the mainstream European right (i.e. of the block that stands to the right of conservatism and is at least nominally anti-immigration, while avoiding ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ overtones) – had another election success. Her party ‘Brothers of Italy’ (Fratelli d’Italia) took 28.8%, ahead of the centre-left PD on 24%. A long-way behind these two were the once-successful but now declining anti-system protest party Five Star Movement on 10.0%, and then Meloni’s coalition partners Lega and Forza Italia, on 9.0% and 9.6% respectively.

Forza Italia is the remnant of the late Silvio Berlusconi’s reactionary conservative party, while Lega‘s leader Matteo Salvini was once the highest profile anti-immigration politician in Italy, but has long since been overshadowed by Meloni. Almost as much as Zemmour in France, Salvini has had to live down his former Putinism.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni addressing a pre-election rally

Meloni’s main political allies in the outgoing Parliament were the conservative-populist former governing party in Poland, Law and Justice. They lost power in last October’s Polish general election, and remained in second place yesterday with 35.7%, just behind the liberal/centrist slate ‘Civic Coalition’.

A rival Polish populist movement known as Confederation bounced back from several years of internal party conflict, polling 11.8% and gaining six MEPs. It’s not clear with whom they will ally in the new Parliament, as their political positions are anti-immigration, economically libertarian, and anti-Putin.

The strength of the anti-immigration right in the European Parliament will now depend to a large extent on whether Le Pen and Meloni can work together, or whether Europe’s conservative establishment manage to co-opt Meloni and some other quasi-nationalist parties.

Among the latter, one of the most widely publicised is in Spain whose reactionary conservative party Vox is a typical example of the trend towards pro-Israel, pro-capitalist stances among quasi-nationalist parties. Vox advanced from 6.2% (four MEPs) in 2019 to 9.6% (six MEPs) yesterday, barely justifying the hype it has been given in the media, but the big winners in Spain were the mainstream conservative PP, whose vote shot up from 20.2% to 34.2%.

Vox leader Santiago Abascal casting his vote yesterday.

Crank conspiracy theories embraced by some in our own movement were represented on Spanish ballot papers by a new party SALF (‘The Party is Over’), founded by an ideologically shallow social media celebrity, Alvise Pérez. A decade ago Peréz was a student in England at Leeds University, where he was active in the Liberal Democrats, and he later joined the Lib Dems’s short-lived Spanish equivalent Ciudadanos (Citizens).

His more recent success in building a political movement on the back of online conspiracy theorising and stunts, merely demonstrates the political idiocy of a large section of the ‘dissident’ movement, including the so-called ‘alt right’. Pérez’s party polled 4.6%, enough to gain three MEPs.

As usual the fringe right in Spain – a party that claims to represent the Falangist tradition – polled a tiny vote, amounting to just 0.05%.

In Portugal Vox’s imitator CHEGA (which translates as “Enough”, as in “We’ve had enough!”) polled 9.8%, up from 1.5% in 2019 when the party had only just been formed and was part of a hastily patched up joint ‘right-wing’ slate.

Croatia is one of several European countries where the broad right has reorganised itself in recent years. The largest party that represents traditional Croatian nationalist views is the Homeland Movement, who polled 8.8%, enough to elect one MEP.

Greece has seen some of the most blatant interference with ‘democratic’ politics. At the 2014 election, the national socialist party Golden Dawn polled 9.4% and elected three MEPs. This was one of several strong election results for Golden Dawn during the 2010s, but the party was subjected both to violent attack from left-wing terrorists, and to legalistic attack by the Greek state. As a result its leaders found themselves in jail and the party was effectively banned.

At yesterday’s election the main anti-immigration party was Greek Solution, though it’s a reactionary rather than national socialist party, and has expressed Putinist foreign policy positions. They polled 9.5% yesterday.

Cyprus has an anti-immigration party once seen as allied to Golden Dawn. This is the National Popular Front (ELAM): they polled 11.2% yesterday, up from 8.3% in 2019.

In Malta a national-socialist party allied to Golden Dawn – Imperium Europa, led by Norman Lowell – polled 3.2% in 2019. This year that fell slightly to 2.6%.

Among advances for anti-immigration parties, in Finland the Finns Party lost one of their seats, with their vote declining to 7.6% as voters rallied behind the government’s strongly anti-Moscow stance. To be fair, the Finns Party are also strongly anti-Putin, but in a country on the frontline at a time of crisis, there is a tendency to rally behind the government. In this respect Germany is the exception, because decades of brainwashing have taught Germans that they aren’t allowed to take a strong military stance against their enemies. Finnish patriots haven’t been emasculated.

Sweden Democrats celebrating last night!

In Sweden the main anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats polled 13.2%, very slightly down on their historic success in 2019.

Similarly in Denmark the Danish People’s Party fell slightly from 10.8% to 6.4%.

While some ‘mainstream’ anti-immigration parties can seem discreditable and cowardly, one of the most honourable and courageous of these parties is in Estonia, where the Conservative People’s Party (EKRE) advanced to 14.9%, from 12.7% in 2019.

In neighbouring Latvia the anti-immigration party National Alliance similarly advanced to 22.1%, from 16.5% five years ago.

For complicated geopolitical and historical reasons, the position in the third Baltic republic, Lithuania, is more nuanced. There, the largest of several ‘right-wing’ parties also represents the interests of ethnic Poles. (It should be remembered that during the 16th-17th centuries, during what we in the UK think of as the Elizabethean and Jacobean eras, the confederation Poland-Lithuania was one of the greatest powers in Europe.)

This Polish-Lithuanian party LLRA-KSS polled 5.8% this year, a fraction up from 2014. The rest of the Lithuanian ‘right’ is fragmented, with the National Alliance (a relatively new party founded in 2016), for example, polling 3.8%.

With most of the electorally credible ‘right’ (outside Germany) having moved against Putin, Hungary‘s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is in a delicate position. His party Fidesz remained easily the largest force at yesterday’s election, polling 44.3%, while the once-effective but now marginal nationalist party Jobbik managed only 1%. But it’s not yet clear with whom Fidesz‘s MEPs will ally in the new Parliament.

Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán all smiles with his Italian counterpart, but their parties’ relations in the European Parliament have not been easy, since Meloni is staunchly pro-Ukraine, whereas Orbán has pushed a softcore Putinism.

One of the few openly Putinist parties in the new Parliament is from Bulgaria, where the ‘Revival’ party polled 15.4%, a huge increase on their 1% in 2019 and reflecting the traditional instability of Bulgarian politics where wild swings of this kind are not uncommon. These Bulgarian Putinists are unlikely to find many allies in the new Parliament, unless AfD choose to go into the wilderness with them.

Romania‘s new populist ‘right-wing’ party AUR has adopted a softer form of Putinism, seeking to undermine Europe’s support for Ukraine without being blatantly pro-Moscow. As in much of South-Eastern Europe, the position is complicated by petty nationalism / chauvinism, with AUR for example promoting anti-Hungarian themes. (A lot of this is rooted in disputes going back to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the redrawing of Europe’s map following the First World War.)

AUR polled 15% but unlike the Bulgarian ‘Revival’ party it’s likely to moderate its stance on foreign policy, so as to remain part of one of the mainstream pan-nationalist or conservative groups in the new Parliament.

Slovakia‘s politics hit the headlines last month with the attempted assassination of Prime Minister Robert Fico, whose party Smer is difficult to place on the ideological map, being both left-wing and populist/’nationalist’. Smer was the second-largest party yesterday, polling 24.8%. As with the Romanian AUR, it might moderate its stance on the war in Ukraine so as to be admitted into one of the cross-party groups in the new Parliament, but since it was until recently in the same group as the UK Labour Party, it’s far from clear where it would naturally belong!

The more hardline nationalist party SNS (Slovak National Party), who back in 2014 were strong enough to elect an MEP), polled only 1.9% yesterday. Another Slovakian party, Freedom & Solidarity, represents a very different type of ‘right-wing'” socially libertarian, Eurosceptic, and ‘right-wing’ on economics in a US-style, pro-capitalist sense. They polled 4.9% yesterday.

Politics in the Czech Republic is another area that can mystify racial nationalist observers in other countries. The main anti-immigration party Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD – allied to Marine Le Pen’s RN, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, and other such forces in the European Parliament) is led by the quarter-Japanese, quarter-Korean, half-Czech, Tomio Okamura.

Last year one of their two MEPs, retired general Hynek Blaško, broke away to form a blatantly Putinist party but obtained a humiliating 0.5% yesterday. Meanwhile his former party fell to 5.7%, but will retain one MEP.

In Slovenia there is very little that could be termed a ‘nationalist’ party. The tiny Slovenian National Party split again a few years ago, and one of its activists founded a libertarian and anti-lockdown party ‘Resni.ca‘. They polled 4% yesterday, not enough to gain an MEP.

Luxembourg has no significant anti-immigration party, and its largest ‘right-wing’ force is a party that mainly represents the interests of pensioners, the mildly populist ADR, which polled 11.8% yesterday, enough to elect one MEP who will probably ally with Meloni’s ‘moderate’ nationalist group if it remains in its present form.

H&D will continue to monitor developments in Europe during the coming weeks, and will report on the reshaping of the electorally-focused side of European nationalism both here and in future editions of the magazine.

Fighting for race and nation at the ballot box

While the rest of Europe is engaged in elections for a ‘Parliament’ that has little genuine power over European institutions, nominations were published this weekend across the UK for the General Election on 4th July.

H&D readers will have varying views on the efficacy of contesting such elections, but we can all agree that the list of candidates reflects a slow but perceptible recovery from the disaster inflicted on our movement by Nick Griffin’s destruction of the BNP more than a decade ago.

There are two main groups of nationalist candidates. The British Democrats, who achieved a handful of strong results at the local council elections last month, are fighting four constituencies: Basildon & Billericay (where Chris Bateman is standing against Conservative Party chairman Richard Holden); Faversham & Mid Kent (Lawrence Rustem); Maidstone & Malling (Gary Butler); and Doncaster North (where Frank Calladine is up against former Labour leader Ed Miliband).

Mr Calladine is the only racial nationalist candidate in the UK who will not have a Reform UK opponent.

Three of the British Democrat candidates are already parish councillors. They understand that in present circumstances it’s difficult to contest parliamentary elections – party chairman and H&D patron Dr Jim Lewthwaite has emphasised that nationalism is a long-term project – but it’s important to offer the British people a genuine choice, and to take a step forward in rebuilding nationalism amid the collapse of the Tory party and the transformation of mainstream politics.

The English Democrats (unlike the Brit Dems) are primarily a civic nationalist party, but their candidates this year include several staunch racial nationalists, as well as others whose main focus is on constitutional reform. The party’s platform highlights a pledge to “end immigration now!”

The fifteen ED candidates nationwide include the well-known anti-immigration campaigner Steve Laws in Dover & Deal, and four members of Patriotic Alternative: Thomas Bryer in Makerfield, Craig Buckley in Leigh & Atherton, Patrick McGrath in Bolton West, and Matthew Darrington in Newark.

Also standing for the EDs are party chairman Robin Tilbrook (Brentwood & Ongar), former Brexit Party founding chairman Catherine Blaiklock (Great Yarmouth), and longstanding campaigners for an English Parliament such as Steve Morris (contesting Bury South for the first time, having earlier stood in many council elections).

Two former BNP activists are standing as independents on anti-immigration manifestos: Joe Owens in Liverpool Wavertree, and Dr Andrew Emerson in Chichester.

Later this week H&D will analyse the campaign so far, and examine potential benefits for our cause from the present political drama.

The exhausted volcanoes – Diane Abbott, Nigel Farage, and campaign u-turns

The General Election has already seen its first U-turns, as two headlines from the campaign’s first week were reversed.

But far from indicating genuine potential for change, these U-turns revealed the weakness of both the mainstream left and the mainstream civic nationalist ‘right’, which have long exhausted whatever radicalism they once possessed.

U-turn number one involved Diane Abbott, the first black woman elected to Parliament in 1987, who (as we discussed a few days ago) got herself suspended from the Labour Party for trying to claim a higher victim status for blacks – thus committing sacrilege against the ‘Holocaust’, liberal Europe’s only religious faith.

Supposedly the question was whether Abbott had done sufficient penance for this sin against the Holy Holocaust. But the real question was whether the Labour leadership’s Jewish friends felt they could risk offending both the black lobby and the feminist lobby.

One big risk was that Abbott might stand as an independent and make common cause with her old comrade Jeremy Corbyn.

So, on balance, Labour decided that an ageing and sick negress wasn’t a real danger to an imminent Labour government with a likely majority of more than 150.

Or to use a vulgar political cliché, that she was better “inside the tent p*****g out, than outside the tent p*****g in”.

So after briefing the press that Abbott would be prevented from standing as a Labour candidate, party bosses suddenly decided she remained a good comrade after all.

Naturally, the Tory press have argued that this long drawn out Abbott fiasco proves the strength and danger of the Labour ‘left’. In fact it proves the opposite.

Abbott’s type of ‘left’ is now toothless. Most of its once-‘radical’ demands are today’s woke orthodoxy. Palestine is pretty much the only exception, and Starmer’s party is confident that its Zionist policy will easily survive whatever rhetorical challenges the likes of Abbott can launch from the backbenches.

This week’s second U-turn was Nigel Farage’s decision that he would, after all, be a parliamentary candidate for Reform UK, a party he already effectively owned, and where he has now openly taken over as leader.

Just over a week after announcing that six weeks wasn’t long enough to fight a credible election campaign from scratch, Farage decided that in fact four and a half weeks was more than enough. The lucky voters are in one of England’s most deprived but Whitest constituencies, the Essex seaside resort of Clacton.

Douglas Carswell (above left), a former Tory, was re-elected twice in Clacton for UKIP, but soon fell out with its then leader Nigel Farage.

Perhaps Clacton’s residents will be gullible enough to believe Farage offers a genuine alternative to the Westminster gang politicians. Perhaps they will decide he is the best of a grim bunch.

But as with Abbott, the Farage u-turn actually demonstrates the weakness of Reform UK, not its strength.

It’s unlikely that many Britons could name another Reform UK politician apart from Farage. And apart from Brexit (now yesterday’s issue) and immigration (where Farage continues to speak with forked tongue) few voters would be able to name a Reform UK policy. Since the party lacks any serious branch structure around the country, it’s unlikely that anyone will enlighten them.

The Farage campaign will be an extended con-trick, as Reform UK’s new/old leader pretends that a colour-blind policy can restrict immigration in any meaningful way, or that it can improve the many immigration-related crises of modern Britain.

Brexit resulted in increased rather then reduced immigration – and far more importantly it replaced European immigrants with African and Asian immigrants, the very opposite of what most pro-Brexit voters dreamed of.

This should have been no surprise to Farage.

Time and again in the European Parliament and elsewhere, sincere anti-immigration politicians such as Andrew Brons put Farage on the spot, eliciting confirmation that the former UKIP, former Brexit Party, and now Reform UK leader was not genuinely anti-immigration.

Farage and Reform UK are slavish devotees of ‘free market’ globalism. And it is global capitalism itself (not wokeism or some bogeyman like Klaus Schwab or George Soros) that is the engine of mass migration.

That’s why what Britain and Europe needs is not the moribund Marxism of Abbott and Corbyn, nor the fake ‘patriotism’ of Farage and Tice. These are what Disraeli (when speaking of the Victorian Liberal Party and his rival Gladstone) famously called: “a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.

For Disraeli’s co-racialists today, the civic nationalist ‘right’ and the anti-Zionist ‘left’ are similarly capable of just the occasional rumble, and at most a minor earthquake.

Those of us looking for a revolutionary earthquake must instead build a movement that offers a true socialist nationalism that unites all true Europeans.

That’s our movement’s task for the next five years, whether or not the likes of Abbott and Farage are in Parliament playing their futile games for the television cameras.

Labour and the victim card

Diane Abbott addressing a rally in her Hackney constituency this week.

As the UK general election campaign ends its first week, Labour still looks a certain winner. But the party’s first stumble has illustrated the problem of victim culture in today’s woke world.

Veteran left-wing MP Diane Abbott was suspended from Labour more than a year ago, in one of the party’s many disputes over ‘anti-semitism’.

She had written a letter to The Observer (the UK’s oldest newspaper and traditionally linked to the liberal left) in which she tried to argue that only blacks suffer from “racism”.

Abbott (who was the UK’s first black female MP when elected for the North London constituency Hackney North & Stoke Newington in 1987) wrote that while other minorities such as Jews, Irish and “Travellers” (the obligatory woke term for gypsies) experience “prejudice”, which she defined as “similar to racism”, it was not the same as the black experience of racism, which she implied was something much worse.

“It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”

Also on Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign to be re-elected as an Independent in Islington North, where has been a Labour MP since 1983.

As is inevitable in the 21st century, when any controversy over race arises, the question could not be debated in a normal manner and instead had to trigger an internal party “disciplinary procedure”, even after Abbott had apologised for her letter.

Disputes over whether this disciplinary process had concluded, and if so whether Abbott could now stand as a Labour candidate on 4th July, have become such a tangled affair that Abbott’s fate was twice the lead story for the BBC’s Newsnight on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

Right now it looks as though Labour has tried to allow Abbott to retire with dignity after 37 years at Westminster, having been reinstated to the party, but they are determined not to allow her to stand again as a Labour candidate.

Setting all technicalities aside, what does it tell those of us outside Labour ranks about the state of today’s politics.

It’s interesting that the moment Abbott implied anything potentially anti-semitic (even if her implication was unintentional) she incurred the party leadership’s wrath – whereas her many anti-British and anti-White outbursts over the years were not only tolerated, but even won her promotion.

Diane Abbott’s pro-republican interview in 1984 where she explicitly linked the ‘Troops Out’ and ‘Black British’ causes.

In 1984, three years before she became an MP, Abbott told a pro-republican journal: “Ireland is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us.” This was a time when republican terrorists were routinely shooting and bombing civilians as well as soldiers and policemen, across Ulster and the British mainland.

In 1996 Abbott said that her local hospital should not recruit “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls” as nurses because they had “never met a black person before”.

These are just two of a whole catalogue of extremist remarks made by Abbott throughout her career.

Turning to her letter to The Observer last April, the truth is that ‘racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ are political positions which should be argued in a normal manner – but in the 2020s anything venturing onto such ground is treated as an allegation or scandal, requiring months of investigation (if the alleged ‘anti-semite’ is black), or instant defenestration (if the miscreant is White).

Abbott’s real problem is not ‘anti-semitism’ but incoherence. Her mind is so muddled and her self-obsession as a black woman so complete, that she didn’t pause to consider the implications of what she was writing.

The important unwritten and unaddressed question behind Abbott’s letter is whether the orthodox account of ‘Holocaust’ history is correct.

In other words, were millions of Jews murdered in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War as part of a planned programme of extermination ordered by Adolf Hitler?

If they were, then Abbott’s equation of this experience with school playground abuse suffered by redheads was either monstrously ignorant or deliberately ‘anti-semitic’. If orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history is even broadly accurate, then nothing ever experienced by blacks comes close to what was experienced by Jews. The only times when black people have been the target of planned campaigns of ethnic extermination, have been at the hands of other blacks.

Stephen Pollard was one of many prominent Jewish journalists who called for Abbott’s expulsion from Labour.

But if the ‘Holocaust’ narrative is fundamentally wrong, then Abbott’s elevation of the black experience as a ‘victim card’ trumping anything experienced by Jews, Irish or other minorities, becomes more understandable and credible from her point of view – whatever we might think from our standpoint as White racial nationalists.

Inevitably, however, in all of the media hype around Diane Abbott, the fundamental question has not been considered. And if she chooses to stand again as an Independent, as her old comrade Jeremy Corbyn is doing, we can again expect that the underlying issues will be ignored.

Instead the media and fellow politicians will obsess over whether Diane Abbott has been shown sufficient ‘respect’ as a black woman. Or conversely whether she has shown enough ‘respect’ to Britain’s Jewish community.

We shouldn’t care a damn about these issues of ‘respect’. We shouldn’t care a damn about the ‘feelings’ of blacks, Jews, or any other minority group.

If politicians wish to play a part in governing the United Kingdom – once the centre of the greatest Empire the world has ever known – they should be capable of addressing issues in a responsible and adult manner, without having tantrums about the status of their particular ethnic group or gender. And the same applies to voters.

UK’s latest failed Prime Minister triggers election

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced this afternoon that there will be a general election on 4th July. This will almost certainly result in a Labour government, leaving Sunak as the 14th shortest serving PM in our nation’s history.

His Labour opponents are doubtless correct that one reason for calling an election now was fear that during the summer a new immigration crisis, involving yet more ‘small boats’ crossing the Channel, would prove the government’s impotence.

But few H&D readers will expect anything better from Labour once they return to office. The nationalist movement remains in a state of transition, as we have explained in our analysis of the local elections earlier this month. It’s unlikely that there will be more than a handful of nationalist candidates on 4th July, but as ever we shall provide detailed coverage of the campaign and its implications for our cause, including a close look at the ‘civic nationalist’ party Reform UK and its imitators.

Despite frequent rhetoric, Sunak’s Tories have proved incapable of halting the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel in ‘small boats’.

Most importantly, the likely destruction of the Tory Party at the polls in six weeks time, where Sunak will probably go down to a defeat as bad as (or worse than) the landslide suffered by John Major in 1997, will change the UK’s political landscape in ways that ought to create new opportunities for nascent nationalist parties such as the British Democrats, Homeland Party, and (if and when it registers for electoral purposes) Patriotic Alternative.

H&D will continue to be the only credible, factionally independent source for news about nationalism in the UK, including electoral aspects in the coming weeks. Our next print edition will appear very soon after next month’s European elections.

Six of those who served shorter terms than Sunak were obscure 18th century PMs, dating from an era when politics was more a matter of court factions than ‘parliamentary democracy’.

And two of the more recent PMs to serve very short terms were men who had the misfortune to die or become fatally ill while in office, including one of the best PMs in our history, Bonar Law.

Sunak’s impending defeat will allow him to spend more time with his wife and their billionaire family: his father-in-law is one of the wealthiest men in India.

Sunak’s situation most closely resembles Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who had the misfortune to become Prime Minister at the tail end of a long period of Tory rule when there was a general mood of “time for a change”. But in 1964 Douglas-Home managed a far closer result than Sunak will be capable of in 2024.

For racial nationalists, another interesting aspect of this year’s general election will be how far George Galloway’s Workers Party, or independent candidates (mainly Asians) challenging Labour in Muslim areas, will succeed in damaging Labour over its pro-Zionist stance.

This evening we have already seen what is arguably the first Galloway ‘scalp’ of the campaign. Halifax MP Holly Lynch has retired at the very young age of 37. Though she claims this is due to having a young child and another baby on the way, she is almost certainly running scared of a Galloway-backed campaign in a seat that has been marginal at some previous elections, and which has a large Muslim minority.

Halifax was one of only three boroughs where Galloway’s party won a council seat this month.

By retiring at this very late stage, just before a general election, Ms Lynch has effectively allowed Labour’s leadership to impose a chosen candidate – a fact that Galloway will doubtless exploit by pointing out the ways in which Labour has taken Muslim voters for granted.

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.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers