Pro-terrorist march halted

A gang of apologists for IRA terrorism was due to march through Glasgow today, commemorating the communist International Brigades, ending in a rally at the statue of arch-Stalinist Dolores Ibárurri.

A decade ago the same organisation attempted to march in Liverpool – readers with long memories might recall that H&D was involved in helping mobilising opposition to this Liverpool march. The outcome was that the pro-IRA marchers and their “anti-fascist” friends were literally smashed off the city’s streets. One anti-fascist online journal commented bitterly: “a gang of around two hundred fascists mobilised in the city centre, running amok, and forcing the Irish Republican Flute Band off the streets, before going on to hassle Occupy supporters on an anti-police brutality protest. This was a serious defeat for Liverpool activists, and it is vital that this is acknowledged, so that we can stop it happening again in the future.”

Loyalist demonstrators smashed a similar rally by the same organisers a decade ago

In Glasgow, local patriots had again mobilised to oppose today’s march, and the city’s police have decided they would in present circumstances be incapable of protecting the marchers: consequently they have banned the entire event under Section 12 of the Public Order Act.

Predictably “anti-fascists” and Fenians are whining about their “rights”. The video below shows police enforcing the ban today and protecting those Fenians who showed up.

Perhaps some of their Catholic friends might explain to this gang of terror apologists that the Spanish Republican forces backed by their International Brigade ‘heroes’ slaughtered nuns and priests?

But for today’s Sinn Fein / IRA and their backers, Catholic identity is merely a figleaf for their agenda of terrorist blackmail, which (in their dreams) would lead to Ulster’s surrender.

Loyalists in Glasgow as well as Ulster, and in towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom, will never allow this surrender agenda to succeed.

End of an era: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Queen Elizabeth II presents the World Cup to England captain Bobby Moore at Wembley Stadium on 30th July 1966.

H&D readers will have been saddened to learn this evening of the death of the UK’s longest-reigning monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Saddened not because there is anything tragic or shocking about a 96-year-old lady dying – but because for all of us she represented part of our heritage: one of the last reminders of a different nation.

Now is not the time for detailed political and constitutional discussion, nor for speculation as to whether the monarch could realistically have done anything to prevent some of the disastrous policy decisions made by governments of different parties during her reign.

But we can all wish King Charles III well, and hope that he presides over a very different, revitalised political scene in the years to come.

The Queen at Fulwood Barracks, near the H&D office in Preston, Lancashire, in 1979.

How Rudolf Hess tried to stop war – and why others wanted to kill him

Rudolf Hess in 1986, a year before his death

Thirty-five years ago today, the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess died at Spandau, where he had been the sole prisoner for more than twenty years. He had been incarcerated for almost half a century, since his crash landing in Scotland in May 1941.

Hess flew to Britain hoping that Germany and Britain could end their mutually-destructive war. He proposed that Britain should develop her Empire which was in no way threatened by Germany, who only required the return of her relatively modest colonies from the Kaiser’s era.

Under Hess’s proposals, Germany would be given a free hand in Europe, including dealing with Stalin’s Soviet Union.

After war had intensified during 1940, Hess perceived that Britain would not now easily agree a peace settlement without losing prestige, so he decided to take the risk of flying to Britain himself, “so that by his own presence in England, England would be enabled to consider an approach.” Hess hoped that he could provide some foundation on which peace talks could proceed.

Instead this martyr for peace found himself in one prison or another for the rest of his life.

Rudolf Hess believed he could convince British leaders of Adolf Hitler’s true intentions

To begin with Hess used cautious language about the Soviet Union, not wishing to give away too much in advance of what he hoped would be serious negotiations with the British. But by July 1941 when he wrote a memorandum titled “Germany – England from the viewpoint of war against the Soviet Union”, eventually handed to government minister and Daily Express owner Lord Beaverbrook, Hess was open (and prescient) about the overriding threat from Moscow that he believed an Anglo-German alliance should combat.

He believed that Germany was strong enough to defeat Russia, correctly pointing out that German morale was far higher in this war than it had been during the First World War:
“It will hardly be doubted that the spirit of the troops is magnificent. The elements which in the [first] world war eventually weakened the spirit of the German troops – the disruptive influences from home infected with Marxist communism, and hunger at home – are missing today.

“Thanks to the effects of national-socialism, the German armed forces are not only immune from Bolshevik propaganda, but fantastically anti-Bolshevik.”

Nevertheless, Hess asked influential Britons such as Beaverbrook to consider the consequences for the British Empire of a German defeat.

“Consequent on the Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, a victory for England would be a victory for the Bolsheviks.

“…Should England’s hopes of a German weakening be realised, the Soviet state, after the expansion of its armament capacity, would be the strongest military power in the world.

“Only a strong Germany as counter-balance, supported by all Europe, and in trustful relationship with England, could hinder this.

“I believe that Germany, destined by fate, was compelled at a given moment to draw aside the curtain covering the secret of the Bolshevik army, so that revelation of the danger might even yet make possible the defence of the civilised world.

“…England should further bear in mind the danger that would face certain parts of her Empire when the Bolshevik giant – which today is hardly conquerable by the biggest army in the world – has reached the military strength to be anticipated in the future.

“The danger will be still further increased by the attraction of Bolshevik ideas with the native-born populations with a low standard of living.

“…I am convinced that world domination awaits the Soviet Union in the future – if her power is not broken at the last minute – with the loss to Great Britain of her position as an Imperial power.”

Which of us in 2022 could say he was wrong?

The current issue of H&D includes an article by our assistant editor Peter Rushton giving the most likely explanation of Hess’s murder in 1987.

And way back in 1941, soon after Hess’s arrival in Britain, there was an abortive plot to kill him, involving exiled Polish troops and an officer of the Special Operations Executive – the ‘dirty tricks’ wing of the British war effort.

For a discussion of this and other aspects of today’s 35th anniversary of Hess’s murder, visit the new Real History blog by our assistant editor.

Tugendhat’s fundraising “blew rivals out of the water”: is he Britain’s next Foreign Secretary?

Tom Tugendhat – the “clean start” candidate?

In recent weeks H&D has been looking closely at Tom Tugendhat, who finished fifth in the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party but is now tipped to be Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary when Liz Truss becomes Prime Minister next month.

At his new Real History blog, our assistant editor Peter Rushton published a detailed article about Tugendhat’s extraordinary family history.

And official records published this morning show that Tugendhat raised more than £123,000 in donations – vastly more than his leadership rivals. (These donations contributed to the rapid rise in his profile, meaning that a man who has never been even a junior minister is now in line for one of the top three posts in the next cabinet.)

Sir Mick Davis

Almost as soon as his campaign began, Tugendhat received £25,000 from a company controlled by Sir Mick Davis, a South African born Jewish businessman who for eight years chaired the Jewish Leadership Council, described as “responsible for the strategic imperatives of UK Jewry”. He was knighted in 2015 for “services to Holocaust commemoration and education”.

Together with a fellow tycoon, Sir Mick Davis paid the legal expenses of a Tory MP who made false allegations against the anti-Zionist former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Sir Christian Sweeting – a major donor to the Tugendhat campaign – has a prominent role in Vatican charities and investments: he is seen here with Lady Sweeting introducing their son to Pope Francis.

Another £42,000 donation came from a company jointly controlled by Sir Christian Sweeting, a property developer who was charged with a firearms offence in 2001. The firearms charge was later dropped with Mr Sweeting awarded costs, but his bad luck with unfounded suspicions continued later the same year when his premises were searched by Devon & Cornwall police fraud squad.

Ian Mukherjee

And hedge fund tycoon Ian Mukherjee (a generous donor to the pro-Remain campaign before the 2016 Brexit referendum) gave Tugendhat £50,000. Mukherjee was a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs for fifteen years.

Tugendhat’s donations dwarfed those to rival campaigns. For example Rishi Sunak has so far declared only £3,195 in donations (in the form of free office space). Though admittedly Sunak’s personal and family wealth means that he scarcely needs donors.

It’s not yet clear why Tugendhat needed quite such a vast campaign war chest, bearing in mind that his campaign was in theory targeting only 357 fellow MPs, many of whom he would already know personally.

His reported £123,000 in donations worked out at almost £4,000 per vote, but if Britain ends up with its most pro-Zionist Foreign Secretary ever, some of the donors might think their money well spent.

Tugendhat seals Truss victory: will his reward be Defence or Foreign Office?

In this morning’s Times, former Tory leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat delivered the final killer blow to Rishi Sunak’s chances of becoming Prime Minister.

Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss – who was already favourite and now seems a virtual certainty to win the support of Conservative Party members. The winner will be announced on September 5th.

The question now being asked around Westminster is whether Truss has promised Tugendhat a top job in exchange for his support. Most educated guesses are that Ben Wallace (presently Defence Secretary) will be promoted to Foreign Secretary, and that Tugendhat (a former military intelligence officer) will succeed Wallace at the Ministry of Defence.

But there remains an outside chance that Tugendhat will be made Foreign Secretary. (This possibility is highlighted by Sky News – see video above.)

Either way, it’s extraordinary progress for a man whose grandfather – as H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton reveals in a detailed exposé at the Real History blog – was repeatedly investigated by MI5 and was a business partner of Israel’s first president and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

Tom Tugendhat served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but his grandfather was investigated for decades by MI5

Another defeat for London Holocaust Memorial plan – is it time to scrap the scheme?

The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial’ which has now been rejected three times by planning authorities and courts, but which the British Government still insists on promoting

Vastly expensive plans for a huge Holocaust memorial in London, next to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, have suffered another defeat after the Court of Appeal refused to hear the case.

In April this year the High Court blocked the plans, and this week an appeal by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation fell at the first hurdle.

Former prime minister David Cameron launched the plan in 2014 by appointing a Holocaust Commission which reported the following year, recommending a prominent new memorial with attached “learning centre”. The plan soon acquired cross-party support and in July 2016 Victoria Tower Gardens – a park adjacent to Parliament – was chosen as the site.

Architects David Adjaye and Ron Arad were chosen for the project. Their initial budget of £50 million has since risen to a current estimate of £102.9 million.

In 2019 Westminster City Council’s planning authority rejected the proposal. The two leading politicians who co-chaired the project – Conservative Lord Pickles and Labour’s Ed Balls – wrote to the council complaining that planning officers were “giving excessive weight to the number of objections lodged on the planning portal”.

These objections lodged with the council included a detailed report by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton (who now also writes the Real History Blog). His report to Westminster City Council was based on detailed research into the planning history of the original London Holocaust memorial in the 1980s – click here to read.

The late Richard Edmonds recorded a film with Lady Michèle Renouf on the site of the proposed memorial. Click here to view this film.

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”.

Government ministers sought to override Westminster Council by appointing a Whitehall inspector who recommended acceptance of the plan. Housing minister Chris Pincher officially approved the scheme in July 2021. (Pincher has since been disgraced after a series of alcohol-fuelled sexual assaults on young men; his downfall led to the recent resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.)

In April this year Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court ruled that Pincher had acted unlawfully, because Victoria Tower Gardens is protected by a statute dating back to 1900 which specifically prevents it being used as anything other than a garden open to the public.

This week the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no realistic prospect of the High Court judgment being overturned, so it would not hear the case. “There is no real prospect of successfully arguing that the judge’s construction of the 1900 Act was wrong… On the contrary, it was plainly correct.”

The Appeal Court judges rebuked the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for arguing that objectors to the proposal should not have been allowed to raise one of their successful legal points: “It is extremely unattractive for the losing party to argue that his opponent should not have been allowed to introduce a legal argument that turned out to be correct.”

In a typically shameless and arrogant gesture, government minister Paul Scully and Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive Karen Pollock insisted this week that they still support the project, despite it now having been rejected three times – by city council planners, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal.

Lord Pickles, seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May, is co-chairman of the Holocaust memorial project. He also advocates introducing a law to ban “Holocaust denial” in the UK.

H&D understands that the only realistic possibility of forcing through the project now would be for the government to introduce legislation (which would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament) repealing the 1900 law and allowing Victoria Tower Gardens to be used for something other than a park.

If such a law is proposed, we shall use this as an opportunity for a long-overdue debate on the whole principle of whether London should be forced to have a vastly expensive Holocaust memorial. Such a debate must ask the central questions:
What was the ‘Holocaust’?
What did British intelligence and British ministers know (or think they knew) about the ‘Holocaust’ during the 1940s, and what was the factual basis for their knowledge?
What was the relationship between international Jewish organisations and the British war effort, including propaganda and subversive warfare organisations?

If the British taxpayer is expected to pay more than £100 million, and sacrifice a large chunk of the nation’s capital city, to memorialise the ‘Holocaust’, then we have a right to expect answers to these questions.

Tories battle to captain sinking ship

Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss during ITV’s leadership debate – a disaster for the Conservative Party and for our Disunited Kingdom

Today the semi-comic, semi-tragic contest for leadership of the once mighty Conservative & Unionist Party was reduced to two candidates, who will make their pitch to Tory members during the coming weeks.

This is the party that has been in government for 47 of the 77 years since the Second World War, but viewers cringed at the poor quality of televised “debates” between the contenders – in an election that is only happening because the present Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to take responsibility for the sexual incontinence of his Deputy Chief Whip.

Party members must now choose between:
Rishi Sunak, son of wealthy Indian immigrants who left East Africa in the 1960s; entered politics after working for investment bank Goldman Sachs and a couple of “hedge funds”; married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – Mrs Sunak has non-domiciled tax status allowing her to avoid around £20 million in UK taxes;
and
Liz Truss, a former president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats who saw that the Conservatives offered more chance of a parliamentary career; supported the ultra-woke Tory leader David Cameron who saved her career after a scandal in her private life; supported the “Remain” cause in the Brexit referendum, until Cameron was defeated and Truss reinvented herself as a Brexiteer and “right-winger”.

Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer until resigning this month to launch his campaign to replace Johnson. Truss has been Foreign Secretary since last September.

Liz Truss (above left) – now likely to be Britain’s next Prime Minister – with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid after signing a UK-Israel deal on cyber technology, trade and defence.

Both Sunak and Truss are courting their former leadership rival Tom Tugendhat, who is likely to be offered a senior post in the next Cabinet, probably as Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary.

Today H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton published an investigation of Tugendhat’s strange family history in an article for the Real History blog: his grandfather Dr Georg Tugendhat was investigated for decades by MI5. Georg Tugendhat had close connections to international financial criminals and suspected spies, and his business partners included the first President of Israel and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

One very odd aspect of the leadership election was that when Tugendhat was eliminated, his votes did not transfer wholesale to Penny Mordaunt, who on most issues was closer to Tugendhat than any of the other remaining contenders.

How the Daily Mail sank Penny Mordaunt’s leadership campaign

A clue as to why Tugendhat’s transfers split as they did – and why Mordaunt’s campaign was eventually derailed – is Monday’s Daily Mail front page, which dug up an old story that Mordaunt had dared to meet with representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.

This meeting enraged the Zionist lobby. Tugendhat was the most pro-Israel of the leadership candidates, and Mordaunt’s MCB meeting implied that she was not a slavish follower of the Zionist agenda. So because of this one issue (and despite agreeing with Mordaunt on most other key issues) the Tugendhat vote mainly went elsewhere, guaranteeing a Truss v Sunak contest.

H&D wishes a Happy 12th to all readers

The editor and staff of Heritage and Destiny wish all readers a very happy 12th July.

Across Ulster and in several other towns and cities in the UK (and even overseas) loyal friends of the Union are marching in commemoration of the Battle of the Boyne, 12th July 1690, when the deposed King James II and his French allies were decisively defeated by King William III and his Dutch and German allies.

Thanks to this victory in 1690, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was able to develop under King William’s sister-in-law Queen Anne and her successors.

In 2022 we have special reason to celebrate the 12th as we resist the efforts of sinister forces to betray the Union by means of the ‘Northern Ireland Protocol’.

With the outcome of the Conservative leadership election in doubt, there is more reason than ever for loyal friends of Ulster to rally against this betrayal.

The cover story of H&D‘s July-August edition – published this week – discusses the fight against the Protocol and the battle to save a Disunited Kingdom.

Meanwhile we hope all readers enjoy meeting old comrades and celebrating our traditions on this first post-pandemic 12th July.

Multi-coloured Tory leadership 2022: ethnic alibis for anti–”wokeness”

Kemi Badenoch, daughter of Nigerian immigrants and the most anti-‘woke’ candidate in this year’s Conservative leadership election

The political circus of modern Conservatism has pitched its tent in the full glare of media attention. Racial nationalists and (more broadly) traditional patriots are looking on in despair.

On 7th July Boris Johnson – despite having won a landslide majority in December 2019 to deliver Brexit (and for better or worse, having largely succeeded in doing so) was forced to resign. His departure will be delayed until election of a successor.

Until this afternoon there were no fewer than twelve candidates either declared or on the point of declaring. (Within the last hour this was reduced to eight nominated candidates for tomorrow’s first ballot.)

And the most striking aspect is that the most traditionalist, anti-“woke” candidates are from ethnic minorities.

Suella Braverman, whose parents were ethnic Indians (partly Goan) arriving in the UK from Africa in the 1960s, is presently Attorney General. Three years ago she attracted criticism from left-wing and Jewish lobbies after daring to state that her party was committed to “a battle against cultural Marxism”, though nothing she has said or written suggests that she has any advanced understanding of what this term means.

When announcing her leadership bid a few days ago, Braverman told an interviewer: “We need to get rid of all this woke rubbish.”

(above left to right) Leadership candidates Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak in Downing Street with ousted Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Meanwhile Kemi Badenoch, who until last week was “Equalities Minister” in Johnson’s government, launched her campaign with an article in The Times that focused heavily on anti-“woke” arguments.

Badenoch, daughter of Nigerian immigrants, wrote: ”Our country is falsely criticised as oppressive to minorities and immoral, because it enforces its own borders. We cannot maintain a cohesive nation state with the zero-sum identity politics we see today.

“Exemplified by coercive control, the imposition of views, the shutting down of debate, the end of due process, identity politics is not about tolerance or individual rights but the very opposite of our crucial and enduring British values.”

What is truly pathetic about this leadership contest so far is that so-called “right-wing” conservatives are hiding behind the skirts of black women, apparently in the belief that in 2022 any opinions that might remotely be described as “racist” can only be expressed via a non-White spokeswoman.

Jeremy Hunt – the only White Gentile male candidate for the Tory leadership – with his Chinese wife Lucia Guo

Thus the Conservative Party leadership contest has become almost like the multiracial dystopian vision of London depicted in the series Gangs of London.

Ethnic backgrounds of the initial twelve declared or likely contenders included:
a Nigerian (Kemi Badenoch); a Goanese Buddhist (Suella Braverman); a Pakistani Muslim (Rehman Chishti – dropped out) and an Pakistani apostate Muslim (Sajid Javid – dropped out); two Indian Hindus (Rishi Sunak – present favourite – and Priti Patel – dropped out); an Iraqi Kurd and apparently apostate Muslim (Nadhim Zahawi); a Jew (Grant Shapps – dropped out); and a semi-Jew (Tom Tugendhat).

Only three of the eight nominated or initial twelve potential candidates are of straightforwardly British or Irish background going back three generations or more: Jeremy Hunt, Liz Truss and Penny Mordaunt.

Some readers might be surprised that of the nine ‘ethnic’ candidates, only one was a practising Muslim, and he dropped out having come nowhere close to securing sufficient nominations. This is Gillingham MP and imam’s son Rehman Chishti, recently appointed to a junior post at the Foreign Office. Chishti took his oath of allegiance as an MP on the Koran, but also had copies of the Torah and the King James Bible placed on the despatch box during his swearing-in. Even such conspicuous devotion to multi-faith liberalism got him nowhere.

By-election voters reject entire nationalist movement: time for a reboot

Boris Johnson’s premiership is in crisis after two by-election defeats: but voters also rejected the entire spectrum of nationalist parties

Two dramatic parliamentary by-election results tonight delivered a potentially fatal blow to the authority of Boris Johnson. But they also showed that voters even in strongly pro-Brexit constituencies have rejected the entire nationalist movement as presently constituted.

A wide range of different nationalist parties and independents were on the ballot papers in the West Yorkshire constituency of Wakefield, and the Devon constituency of Tiverton & Honiton, offering various combinations of UKIP-style politics; criticism of immigration; rejection of ‘woke’; traditional patriotism; opposition to Islam; racial or semi-racial nationalism; and/or conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Yet the voters were decidedly unimpressed.

On the issues listed above (with the likely exception of CoVID conspiracism which has niche appeal at best) there are undoubtedly many thousands of voters across the two constituencies (as elsewhere in the UK) who agree with civic or racial nationalist policies.

As recently as 2010, the BNP (which of course no longer even pretends to function as a proper political party) polled 2,581 votes in Wakefield (5.8%).

Yet this week all six of the nationalist or anti-lockdown parties in Wakefield added together polled only half this total: just 1,293 votes!!

Ashlea Simon (above centre) at the Salford local election count last month. That was a good night for Ms Simon and her party Britain First, but they came down to earth with a bump tonight in Wakefield.

In Wakefield the most active nationalist campaign was fought by Ashlea Simon of Britain First, who had achieved the country’s best nationalist result at last month’s local elections, polling 21.6% in Walkden North ward, Salford.

Wakefield is of course on the other side of the Pennines, but this West Yorkshire city has many of the same racial problems that led to strong BNP votes in the 2000s. And the fact that the by-election was caused by a homosexual Muslim Conservative MP being jailed for sexual abuse of a 15-year-old boy, ought to have been a gift for even a semi-racial nationalist party.

Ms Simon and her team (including Britain First leader Paul Golding) put in a serious effort, but polled only 311 votes (1.1%), finishing 8th of 15 candidates.

This wasn’t a great result, but the outcome for other nationalist contenders in Wakefield was truly dire. Jayda Fransen of the British Freedom Party was bottom of the poll with only 24 votes (less than 0.1%).

Ms Fransen had to stand as an independent because her party isn’t yet registered. She and the two men who pull the strings in her ‘party’ – Ulster ‘businessman’ Jim Dowson and former MEP Nick Griffin – talk a good fight online, but are effectively seeking to con potential donors that they are running a serious political force (rather than the farce that it truly is).

In a rational world, Fransen, Dowson and Griffin would never show their face again in any political forum, online or in person. But doubtless they are shameless enough to keep the con going.

Serial political conman Nick Griffin (above left) with the nominal leader of the ‘British Freedom Party’, Jayda Fransen, who last night polled one of the most embarrassing votes in British nationalist history.

The best of a feeble bunch of civic nationalist results in Wakefield was Reform UK – successor to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party – finishing sixth with 513 votes (1.9%). But given the comparatively vast resources expended by Richard Tice’s party, this is another shockingly meagre return. Tice’s donors must be running out of patience.

The rump of UKIP polled 124 votes (0.5%), beaten by the English Democrats with 135 votes (0.5%).

And while the anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination movement continues to make a lot of noise both online and in occasional demonstrations, their standard bearer in Wakefield – the Freedom Alliance – barely registered with 187 votes (0.7%).

Meanwhile in Tiverton & Honiton – a traditionally safe Conservative and strongly pro-Brexit seat in Devon – nationalist results were equally dismal.

Reform UK’s total here was even worse than in Wakefield: 481 votes (1.1%). UKIP again failed miserably with 241 votes (0.6%), just ahead of one of the splinter groups from UKIP, the Heritage Party (led by a half-Jamaican and focusing heavily on CoVID-scepticism) who took only 167 votes (0.4%).

The wooden spoon went to Frankie Rufolo of the anti-Islam party For Britain Movement, who polled 146 votes (0.3%). For Britain is led by a former UKIP leadership candidate Anne-Marie Waters, who is now allied to EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’ and claims that she is building towards winning a seat in Parliament at the next general election. On present trends she wouldn’t win a parliamentary seat if she lived for another millennium.

Frankie Rufolo (above right) with For Britain leader Anne-Marie Waters. The Tiverton & Honiton result was another in a recent series of disastrous results for their party.

Ever since the collapse of the BNP a decade ago there has been nothing even resembling a large-scale, successful racial nationalist party. The BNP no longer even pretends to function as a proper political party. Patriotic Alternative (the fastest growing racial nationalist force in the UK) is not registered as a party and so is unable to contest elections. And various smaller parties ranging from the British Democratic Party to the National Front are not yet a substantial presence in parliamentary elections.

Both of the constituencies that had by-elections yesterday were strongly pro-Brexit, and were won by Boris Johnson’s pro-Brexit Conservative Party in 2019. Yet the by-elections were caused by personal scandals forcing the resignation of Conservative MPs. So there ought to have been potential for various types of nationalist to attract voters who had previously backed the Tories.

In this context the Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton results were frankly an embarrassment not just for the parties concerned, but for everyone who calls himself a British nationalist.

Many of those who were active in these campaigns are decent patriots. Yet their political strategies and in most cases their entire party structures should be consigned to the scrapheap.

If we cannot now escape from crank ideas and personal bitterness; if we cannot now agree some form of realistic yet principled agenda and create a serious political movement (whether that movement is electorally focused, or at least for now concentrates on non-electoral politics) – then we deserve the contempt of our fellow Britons and we are unworthy of our ancestors.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers