Sir Roger Scruton: 1944-2020

The term ‘conservative’ is now so much abused it has become almost meaningless, but Sir Roger Scruton – who died today aged 75, having suffered from cancer for the last six months – was a true giant of English conservatism.

Just over a month ago in London, Europe’s greatest conservative leader Viktor Orban presented Sir Roger with the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, saying rightly that he had “foreseen the threats of illegal migration and defended Hungary from unjust criticism.”

Many H&D readers will best remember Roger Scruton for his eighteen years as chief editor and publisher of The Salisbury Review. Within two years of its launch, Scruton’s Review made headlines for publishing a controversial article by Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford, ‘Education and Race – an alternative view’.

The March-April issue of H&D will include an obituary of Sir Roger Scruton: may he rest in peace and may his example inspire new generations of Englishmen to redefine and reinvigorate conservatism for our times.

Gangster president declares war on Iran

Donald Trump with IRA terrorist godfather Gerry Adams. Trump now seeks to emulate his old friend’s record of brutal and shameless murder.

Gangster president Donald Trump has this morning effectively declared war on Iran by ordering the murder of Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the most significant state-sponsored assassination since Czech SOE agents killed Reinhard Heydrich in 1942 – and the most significant such assassination ever to take place outside wartime.

It is immaterial whether Trump’s action was dictated by his slavish devotion to the State of Israel, or was partly inspired by the need to distract attention from his own impeachment for criminal misdeeds.

During his election campaign four years ago, Trump gave American voters the impression that he would end the era of US entanglement in foreign conflicts. Instead he has today embroiled the US in what will be a far more serious conflict than the Iraq and Afghan wars combined.

The US now stands alone, without its NATO allies, as even the British Foreign Office rushes to distance itself from the White House Godfather.  The only cheers have come from Trump’s fellow crook Benjamin Netanyahu and the neocon cabal whose influence Trump once promised to end, but who now enjoy more control over US foreign policy than under Reagan, Clinton, or Bush.

Donald Trump’s political tutor was mafia lawyer Roy Cohn, seen here with (left to right) Donald Trump, nightclub owner and crook Steve Rubell, and Trump’s first wife Ivana.

The day Thatcher got it right!

Fr Patrick Ryan with fellow IRA godfather Gerry Adams

One highlight of Irish National Archives releases publicised this morning involves Mrs Thatcher’s fury at Belgian PM Wilfried Martens, after the Belgians had refused to extradite the notorious IRA priest Fr Patrick Ryan.

The documents relate to events following Ryan’s arrest in 1988 by Belgian police who found a large quantity of cash and bomb-making equipment in his home.

In a repeat of events more than forty years earlier, when French and Belgian authorities took a similarly soft line with Jewish terrorists involved in anti-British atrocities, the Belgians refused to extradite the terrorist priest to London.

Mrs Thatcher was understandably furious, and the official documents released today record her reaction. Martens went on to be the elder statesman of European conservatism, and the whole affair sheds a cynical light on claims that cooperation with Europe is important on ‘security’ grounds.

It’s a sign of our times that today’s report of this in the Daily Mail omits to mention Fr Ryan’s recent gleeful confession to the BBC that Thatcher was “100%” correct to see him as a key player in atrocities such as the Brighton bomb, the IRA’s Libya connection, etc. He boasted of having been personally responsible for devising a foolproof bomb timer, based on a commercially available mini-alarm.

Brexit Party achieves some strong votes amid general Tory landslide

click here to view this week’s nationalist/populist election results

Overall the 2019 General Election was of course a triumph for Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief strategist Dominic Cummings, who took a big risk in setting out to destroy Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party rather than cooperate with it. A risk that has paid off.

Having won the European Parliamentary elections on 23rd May this year with 30.5% of the nationwide vote, electing 29 MEPs, Farage was trapped into an illogical, one-sided ‘deal’ where he stood down all Brexit Party candidates in Tory-held constituencies, while getting no reciprocal concessions even in constituencies where the Brexit Party could be seen as the main challenger.

This sent a fatally mixed message to pro-Leave voters: yes, the Tory Party could supposedly be trusted to deliver Brexit, at least to the extent that Farage didn’t want to split the vote even where the sitting Tory MP was a (former) Remainer. But in other constituencies the Tories could apparently not be trusted, even where their candidate was a hard Brexiteer!

In principle, the strategy didn’t add up; even though in practice Farage had little choice.

Tory strategist Dominic Cummings had a long-term plan to destroy Farage’s Brexit Party – and he succeeded.

And the electoral consequence is starkly obvious: the Brexit Party has zero MPs, a situation that would have astounded most pundits just a few months ago. Of the party’s 275 general election candidates, 165 lost their deposits after polling below 5%.

Alongside the strategic dilemma, Farage had another self-made problem. Seeking to avoid petty internal distractions that had disrupted and eventually destroyed UKIP, Farage decided to run the Brexit Party on a centrally directed ‘business’ model, rather than as a traditional constitutional party.

One consequence is that the Brexit Party has few if any genuine branches: its activists tend to be individuals who (together with a handful of friends and relatives) have a contractual relationship with party HQ. Typically in one northern constituency, the Brexit candidate came from outside the area; and though more than a hundred individuals had sent £25 each to register as Brexit Party supporters in this constituency, not one of them lifted a finger to campaign in the General Election!

Most national Brexit Party effort went into Hartlepool, where Farage’s fellow MEP Richard Tice (Brexit Party chairman) finished in a strong third place with 10,603 votes (25.8%). It seems that Farage and Tice fell out over strategy during the campaign, and by the end the party leader was no longer visiting Hartlepool.

Barnsley councillor Vicky Felton was elected for the Democrats & Veterans Party earlier this year but stood in the General Election for the Brexit Party

However the best results – very significantly – were in Barnsley, where the Brexit Party formed an alliance with a much smaller party which did have a genuine local activist base. Democrats & Veterans Party councillor Vicky Felton finished runner-up with 11,233 votes (30.4%) in Barnsley Central, while in Barnsley East, Brexit Party candidate Jim Ferguson (though not himself local) benefited from the D&V activist base and was another runner-up with 11,112 votes (29.2%).

Mrs Felton now describes herself as an independent councillor, though her husband Gavin Felton remains Democrats & Veterans Party chairman. Similarly Rebecca Rees-Evans, wife of D&V Party founder Jonathan Rees-Evans, was Brexit Party candidate in Cynon Valley, polling 10.1%.

In some formerly strong Brexit/UKIP areas, Farage’s challenge faded away as pro-Leave voters flocked to the Tories. Local councillor Alan Graves lost his deposit in Derby North with 4.1%. (This was one of many Tory gains from the Labour Party across the Midlands.) In next door Derby South the Brexit Party’s Tim Prosser did slightly better and at least got his deposit back with 5.8%. (He was helped by this not being a realistic Tory target.)

One striking feature of the Brexit Party’s results is that it tended to poll better on the Eastern than Western side of England, and didn’t build much on old BNP strongholds (with the partial exception of Barnsley).

For example: Brexit candidates took 8.6% in Burnley (peak BNP vote 11.3%); 7.5% in Oldham West & Royton (peak BNP vote 16.4%); 6.5% in Oldham East & Saddleworth (peak BNP vote 11.2%); 7.2% in Barking (peak BNP vote 16.9%); 3.3% in Dewsbury (peak BNP vote 13.1%); 5.9% in Stoke North (peak BNP vote 8.0%); and 6.6% in Dagenham & Rainham (peak BNP vote 11.2%).

There was a strong contrast between two constituencies scarred by Asian ‘grooming’ scandals in recent years: the Brexit Party polled 17.2% in Rotherham, but 8.2% in Rochdale – another example of Farage’s appeal tending to be stronger East of the Pennines.

For the reasons mentioned earlier, there were no Brexit Party candidates in some of the party’s former target seats in Eastern England, such as Thanet South or Boston & Skegness (both held by Tory MPs given a free run by Farage).

James Buckley: Brexit Party candidate disowned for ‘anti-semitism’ and ‘racism’

Several Brexit Party candidates were denounced by ‘anti-fascists’ for allegedly ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘racist’ social media posts. For example a few days before the election the Brexit Party disowned their own candidate James Buckley in Blackley & Broughton (a cross-border Manchester-Salford constituency) after his history of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish activism was made public.

However Mr Buckley remained on the ballot paper as a Brexit Party candidate, as parties do not have the power to remove such labels after the close of nominations. He saved his deposit, finishing third with 2,736 votes (7.1%).

Another alleged ‘anti-semite’ disowned by their own party went on regardless to be elected as an MP. Neale Hanvey won Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, officially as Scottish National Party candidate, despite having been thrown out of the SNP for online posts including sharing an ‘anti-semitic’ image of George Soros.

This is believed to be the first time ever that a candidate has been suspended from their own party during a campaign, yet gone on to win the seat. Mr Hanvey will sit as an independent in the new House of Commons.

Further analysis of the 2019 General Election’s consequences for our movement will follow on this site during the weekend, and in the January 2020 edition of H&D.

Nationalist/Populist results at 2019 election

Most British racial nationalists stood aside from the 2019 General Election, recognising that this would be fought mainly over the Brexit issue. There were no candidates from the National Front, British Democratic Party or For Britain Movement.

Those BNP activists who still want to see a campaigning political party backed David Furness’s doomed challenge for the leadership.

David Furness was the sole BNP candidate, obtaining meagre reward for his energetic campaign in Hornchurch & Upminster, despite having no competition here from the Brexit Party or UKIP. Mr Furness finished fifth of five candidates with 510 votes (0.9%). Pro-Brexit voters here rallied behind the Conservative candidate Julia Lopez, re-elected with 65.8% of the vote.

The English Democrats had five candidates, three of whom had no Brexit Party or UKIP opponents, but like Mr Furness were overshadowed by the Conservative appeal to Brexiteers:
Graham Moore, Bexleyheath & Crayford, 520 votes (1.2%), the best nationalist-populist vote this year outside Brexit/UKIP ranks;
party leader Robin Tilbrook, Brentwood & Ongar, 532 votes (1.0%);
eccentric anti-Islam activist Amy Dalla Mura, Broxtowe, 432 votes (0.8%).

Outgoing Speaker John Bercow’s seat in Buckingham was retained by the new Tory candidate, with both the Brexit Party’s Andrew Bell (2.0%) and the EDs’ Antonio Vitiello (0.3%) pushed to the margins. In Doncaster North (once an English Democrat stronghold) ED candidate Frank Calladine with 0.8% was way behind the Brexit Party’s Andy Stewart, whose 20.4% was still only enough for third place.

Dave Harding of the Veterans & People’s Party

Dave Harding of the Veterans and People’s Party took 631 votes (1.5%) in Great Yarmouth; while his party colleague Mark Tunnicliff in Linlithgow & Falkirk East managed 588 votes (1.0%).

Former NF and ED candidate Gary Butler polled 369 votes (0.7%) as an independent candidate in Faversham & Mid Kent; while former BNP candidate Dr Andrew Emerson polled 109 votes (0.2%) for his Patria party in Chichester. Former UKIP leader Henry Bolton, whose splinter party Our Nation was deregistered earlier this year, polled 576 votes (1.0%) as an independent in Folkestone & Hythe.

The remnants of UKIP managed only 44 candidates nationwide, and even when not splitting the vote against Brexit Party candidates, their results were unimpressive. Mixed-race London Assembly member David Kurten saw the UKIP vote halved in Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, polling just 1.7%, down from 3.7% in 2017.

Fiona Mills won UKIP’s best vote this year

Even when not facing Brexit Party opponents, UKIP candidates typically lost half or more of their already poor 2017 votes. The party has paid a high price for its internal divisions and its on-off alliances with fringe anti-Islam campaigners, including online cranks. Only two UKIP candidates managed to poll 2% or more this year: their best result was in Carlisle, where Fiona Mills polled 1,045 votes (2.4%).

Former UKIP county councillor Helena Windsor, standing as an independent in Surrey East, managed 1,374 votes (2.3%).

Nationalist-Populist Success in Uruguay

Conservative presidential and vice-presidential candidates Luis Lacalle Pou and Beatriz Argimón

The latest country to be touched by the growing national populist wave is Uruguay, the most European country in South America in ethnic make up.

Until the 1970s the centre left Partido Colorado (Reds) and the centre right Partido Nacional or Blanco (Whites) alternated in office, but between 1973 and 1985 Uruguay was under military rule, as the armed forces struggled to repress the extremely violent Marxist-Leninist Tupamaro guerilla movement.

After democracy was restored in 1985, former Tupamaros formed the so called Frente Amplio (“Broad Front”), which has held power for the last fifteen years. Its “achievements” include inviting Syrian “refugees” and African immigrants to settle in the country to solve the problem of a lack of diversity.

Curiously, these changes have been accompanied by an explosion of violent crime in what was once South America’s most peaceful society, though the Frente Amplio’s belief that criminals are the victims of social injustice has certainly contributed more to the crime wave than the limited non-white immigration that Uruguay has experienced so far.

This month however a newly formed populist and nationalist party Cabildo Abierto has scored notable successes, taking a little over 11% of the votes cast, eleven of the 99 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and three of the thirty seats in the Senate.

Styled the “Vox” of Uruguay by the press, following the electoral successes of the Spanish national conservative party, it is in some ways more interesting than Vox itself, since Cabildo Abierto has adopted a mixture of socially conservative policies, notably on crime and immigration, but also strongly opposing abortion, combined with “left wing” economic policies, strongly referencing distributist ideals and supporting generous social provision for the poor, though not the work shy.

It is not therefore surprising that while some of its cadres come from the “traditional” parties (notably former Blancos, who think that their old party is now too socially liberal), and its leader, General Guido Manini Rios, was commander in chief of the Uruguayan Army till he was cashiered last year for criticising the vindictive policy of the Frente Amplio towards retired officers who had used vigorous methods to obtain intelligence from captured Tupamaros in the 1970s, much of its electorate is very working class and it is winning votes principally from disillusioned ex-supporters.

Readers who can speak Spanish will find its web site here.

A patriotic mural celebrates the 33 militant nationalists who sparked Uruguayan independence in 1825.

At the time of writing, it seems that the candidate of the Partido Nacional has won a very close fight with the Frente Amplio in the second round run off for the presidency. The PN candidate has been endorsed by a five party coalition including Cabildo Abierto. Uruguay’s elections court has yet to scrutinise some 30,000 questioned ballot papers before the result if officially declared.

In a world where national populism is thriving so near to us as the Pas de Calais, and so far away as Uruguay, the question must be asked, why not here in Great Britain?

Brexit dominates General Election – racial nationalist parties stand aside

Nominations closed today for the UK General Election on December 12th, and H&D readers will not be surprised to learn that there are very few candidates from racial nationalist parties.

Both the National Front and the British Democratic Party have agreed to stand aside from this General Election, recognising that it will be dominated by the Brexit issue and that most racial nationalists will wish to use their votes to support a pro-Brexit candidate. (Though there is of course a minority of our movement that takes an anti-Brexit line, following the tradition of Sir Oswald Mosley’s post-war Union Movement.)

For the BNP, David Furness will be contesting the Hornchurch & Upminster constituency in outer East London, where he seems to be the only non-Tory, pro-Brexit candidate. He is the only BNP candidate nationwide: this is the tenth general election that the BNP has contested since it was founded in 1982, and its lowest-ever number of candidates.

Former BNP activist Dr Andrew Emerson is contesting his home constituency of Chichester for the Patria party which he formed with LEL, NF and BNP veteran Dennis Whiting and fellow nationalists who broke away from the BNP some years ago. This will be Dr Emerson’s third parliamentary campaign in Chichester during the past four years: this time he has no opponent from UKIP or the Brexit Party.

Gary Butler, who was NF candidate for Maidstone & the Weald in 2010 and English Democrat candidate for Faversham & Mid Kent in 2015, is an Independent candidate this year, again for Faversham & Mid Kent.

Meanwhile in the Liverpool West Derby constituency, veteran nationalist activist Joe Owens appears as proposer on the nomination papers of Brexit Party candidate Ray Pearson – though Mr Owens has recently posted a YouTube video criticising party leader Nigel Farage for striking a deal to stand down 317 candidates in Tory-held constituencies.

Vicky Felton – councillor for the Democrats & Veterans Party in Monk Bretton ward, Barnsley – is the Brexit Party candidate for Barnsley Central. There has not been any announcement of a merger between D&V and the Brexit Party, and Mrs Felton’s husband Gavin remains D&V Party chairman, so this might be a temporary arrangement just for this election. Similarly Rebecca Rees-Evans, husband of D&V founder and leader Jonathan Rees-Evans, is Brexit Party candidate for Cynon Valley, where she was UKIP candidate in 2015.

There are five English Democrat candidates this year (only one of whom has a Brexit Party opponent and none of whom have UKIP opponents); while the Veterans and People’s Party is contesting Great Yarmouth, without Brexit Party or UKIP opposition, and Linlithgow & East Falkirk, where it has a Brexit Party opponent.

There are only 44 UKIP candidates nationwide (down from 467 just two years ago) – including two in Northern Ireland and seven in Scotland – but in thirteen of these constituencies UKIP and the Brexit Party are standing against each other, including two in Sunderland, two in Sheffield, and Oldham West & Royton.

There are ex-UKIP independents standing in several constituencies, including former party leader Henry Bolton, who will be Independent candidate for his home constituency Folkestone & Hythe. His splinter party Our Nation was deregistered last month after only a year in existence.

H&D will feature reports and analysis on the UK General Election during the next few weeks, and our January 2020 edition will examine future strategies for our movement once the Brexit issue has (one way or another) been resolved.

Spanish nationalist party surges ahead

Vox leader Santiago Abascal addressing a party rally

Yesterday’s general election in Spain saw the nationalist party Vox double its number of MPs from 24 to 52, after its vote increased from 10.3% to 15.1%.

Vox has been in existence for less than six years, and achieved its first significant electoral success at regional elections in Andalusia, southern Spain, last December.

Yesterday was the second Spanish general election in seven months. In April Vox (who had never previously polled above 1% in a general election) managed 10.3% and won parliamentary seats for the first time. Following yesterday’s result, left-wing opponents feared that Spain’s “far-right” is now “one of the strongest in Europe”.

Some observers perceived the latest Vox success as partly a backlash by traditionalist voters against the vindictive decision by Spain’s leftwing rulers to exhume the remains of General Francisco Franco (who ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 after a successful anti-communist revolt).

Spain’s leftwing rulers recently exhumed the remains of former leader Gen. Francisco Franco from his tomb at the Valley of the Fallen (above) near Madrid.

This year’s two general elections have been a disaster for Spain’s mainstream conservative parties, the long-established People’s Party (some of whose right-wing broke away to form Vox at the end of 2013) and the ‘centre-right’ Citizens party.

Yesterday the PP won back some seats at the expense of the Citizens, who lost 47 of their 57 seats. The important fact however is that while Spanish nationalism (which had been electorally insignificant since General Franco’s death in 1975) is rapidly advancing, the conservative parties are in crisis.

The two conservative parties combined now have only 98 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, down from 123 in April this year and 169 in 2016.

This is a phenomenon repeated in several European countries, notably Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU-CSU is divided over whether to continue ruling out future coalitions with the ever-stronger anti-immigration party AfD.

The one big exception is the UK, which while politics remains dominated by the Brexit question has had no chance to develop any serious nationalist and anti-immigration force.

Later this week H&D will begin detailed coverage of the UK’s 2019 General Election, comparing our political line-up with the rest of Europe, and asking how our movement can progress in a post-Brexit nation.

Remembering the Fallen

101 years ago today the guns fell silent after more than four years of slaughter, at the end of the 20th century’s first European Civil War.

H&D readers take varying views of Brexit (the majority in favour of leaving the EU) but we should admit that at least some of those who created what became the European Union were genuinely motivated by the noble aim of ensuring that such a war never happened again.

Whatever happens with the Brexit process, British nationalists should aim for a continent of Europeans co-existing peacefully and prepared to unite when necessary to defend our common heritage against alien invasion.

And we should never forget that the British establishment parties (Lib, Lab and Con) shamefully politicised Remembrance Day when for blatantly political reasons they banned Rhodesian (and later South African) ex-serviceman from participating in the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph.

This is why the National Front (initially under its founding chairman A.K. Chesterton, who won the Military Cross on the Western Front in 1918) began its own tradition of a march to the Cenotaph – a tradition which was upheld once again yesterday.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

The latest Holocaustian testimony

The Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig

Today’s testimony in a Hamburg state court room might well be the last time that an accused ‘war criminal’ gives evidence about the functioning of supposedly homicidal gas chambers.

If so, it is consistent with Holocaustian tradition that this contradictory and by any reckoning unsatisfactory ‘evidence’ has been trumpeted today by the mainstream media with conclusive headlines such as the Guardian‘s ‘Ex-Nazi camp guard admits seeing people taken to gas chamber’.

Bruno Dey – now aged 93 but 17 when he served as a sentry in the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig – stated in today’s testimony that from his watchtower he saw on one occasion 20 or 30 “people were led in, into the gas chamber, then the door was locked”. He then heard screams and banging, but added “I didn’t know that they were being gassed.”

How in that case, one might ask, did he know that it was a gas chamber – especially given that elsewhere in his evidence Mr Dey mentions that on another occasion he saw 10 or 15 people taken into the same building, who later walked out again?

But of course Mr Dey, like the rest of us, has been told for the past seventy-odd years that there were gas chambers in Stutthof and elsewhere. And he no doubt believes that his best chance of acquittal is to say – yes, I now realise there was a gas chamber, but I didn’t know at the time and I was only a 17-year-old guard…

Cross-examination will inevitably focus not on the question of whether Mr Dey indeed saw a homicidal gas chamber in operation, but on the extent of his share in collective guilt.

In the Introduction to his four volumes of Écrits Revisionnistes, first published in 1999, the late, great Professor Robert Faurisson wrote:
It is a good thing that the exterminationists have finally (or very nearly) come to abandon, in practice, the charge, based on “testimonies”, according to which there existed execution gas chambers at the camps of Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Hartheim, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof-Danzig, Bergen-Belsen…

It had indeed seemed in recent decades that orthodox historians had given up some of their wildest claims. Yet still it goes on. We will look in vain for any attempt by the Hamburg court to examine forensic or documentary evidence as to whether this ‘execution gas chamber’ at Stutthof (or any other) actually existed.

After all, the court has just heard a 93-year-old eyewitness. What further proof could be required?

One more brick in the Holocaustian edifice. Whether this amounts to history or justice is a question one dare not ask in Hamburg, nor across most of 21st century Europe, on pain of imprisonment. In a few weeks time, for example, Ursula Haverbeck will celebrate her 91st birthday in a Bielefeld prison, 150 miles south of the Hamburg courtroom. Her crime – to have asked the questions that the Hamburg court avoids.

A detailed book about Stutthof has been published by Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, but there is no possibility of the authors being allowed to give expert testimony in a German court.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter