General Election 2024: the end of the Tory Party?

Defeated Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in his Yorkshire constituency

Yesterday’s General Election has demonstrated beyond doubt that our country is a profoundly Disunited Kingdom. There should be no whinging from the ‘right’. We have always known that the electoral system produces gross distortions. But until that system changes, we have to focus our campaigns accordingly.

That’s the message of the “ladder strategy” outlined in recent issues of H&D by nationalist veteran Ian Freeman. In yesterday’s election, Nigel Farage and Reform UK thought they could ignore that strategy and use American-style celebrity grandstanding to win seats from nowhere. Much of the media (and many voters) fell for Farage’s chicanery, but five seats for Reform UK are no basis for a revolution – given that Farage’s various vehicles have made no effort over many years to build a serious grassroots structure.

On the Richter scale of political earthquakes, 2024 ranks high. Excitable social media personalities on the ‘right’ – mostly people with little or no experience of electoral politics – spoke in ludicrous terms of “zero seats” for the Tories. Opinion polls encouraged the hype, suggesting the Tory total might fall as low as 50. In fact it will be just over 120.

Nevertheless, this is a staggering repudiation of the party that has been in government since 2010, typified by the stunning defeat of former Prime Minister Liz Truss in the formerly ultra-safe SW Norfolk.

While Labour will now be in power for at least five years, Starmer should be aware of critical faultlines running through the nation he seeks to govern.


Nigel Farage after his victory in Clacton

Reform UK were the most obvious recipients of protest votes, but there were also stunning successes for (mainly Asian) Gaza-focused independents, as well as for the Greens.

While H&D readers will not need reminding that the racial nationalist movement in our country has been in the doldrums for well over a decade, and remains in a state of transition, there have been discernible signs of recovery. These were never going to be evident in tonight’s results. Rather, they represent hope for the future.

In Leigh & Atherton, for example, an excellent local candidate – PA activist Craig Buckley, standing for the English Democrats – polled 376 votes (0.9%). Most of the voters who agreed with Craig’s arguments voted instead for the fake anti-immigration prospectus offered by Reform UK, who finished runners-up to Labour with 26.9%. A very similar phenomenon occurred in the neighbouring Makerfield constituency, where Tom Bryer (another excellent PA activist standing for the EDs) also polled 0.9%.

By far the best result for any racial nationalist candidate was achieved by British Democrat candidate Frank Calladine, who polled 3.7% in Doncaster North – greatly helped by this being one of the few seats not contested by Reform. A similar advantage enabled William Highton to poll 4.0% for the English Democrats in East Grinstead & Uckfield. Elsewhere it was inevitable that, in the short term, other nationalist candidates would be overshadowed by the Farage circus.

Instead of reacting with despair, we should react with optimism. The good news in Leigh & Atherton was the total collapse of the Conservative Party, who fell from first to third place. In Makerfield and many other constituencies they fell from second to third.

H&D’s Peter Rushton joined Lancashire candidates Craig Buckley and Tom Bryer on the campaign trail

The Conservative Party has been a dominant force in British politics since the 1840s. Ever since the transformation of the UK into a multiracial society, beginning in the late 1940s and accelerating since the 1960s, the Conservative Party has been the biggest single obstacle to development of a serious movement for racial and national renaissance.

It’s now apparent that this obstacle – the great Tory monolith – has crumbled nationwide at today’s election. Numerous ministers were defeated, including Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in Welwyn Hatfield, and Justice Secretary Alex Chalk in Cheltenham.

In the so-called ‘left behind’ areas of North East England, Reform UK made significant advances, overtaking the Tories to become clearly runners-up behind Labour, but the exit poll that predicted thirteen Reform gains was a gross exaggeration. We should recognise that Labour directed its campaigning resources away from its ‘safe’ seats. These are areas where the BNP polled well in the 2000s, and where if Reform UK were capable of building on their undoubted potential, they would by now have large groups of councillors.

The exit poll suggested that a candidate already dropped a week ago by Reform UK for ‘racism’ – Robert Lomas in Barnsley North – stood a good chance of gaining a seat. In fact Labour very easily held on to this constituency. Perhaps if Nigel Farage and his colleagues hadn’t sabotaged their own candidate, he would have stood a chance? Similarly in Hartlepool, the exit poll predicted a Reform gain and inexperienced Reform UK representatives at the count added their own hopelessly inaccurate assessments, but Labour easily held on.

Lee Anderson, the Tory MP who defected to Reform, easily retained Ashfield to become the first Reform success of the night. Nigel Farage easily won Clacton, but will he be looking forward to having Lee Anderson as a colleague for the next five years? Another of Reform’s big names, millionaire businessman Rupert Lowe, won Great Yarmouth to become Reform’s third MP after the Tories collapsed from first place to third. While in a tighter contest in Boston & Skegness, the even wealthier Richard Tice (who until Farage’s return was Reform UK leader) took the party’s total to four.

It wasn’t until late on Friday afternoon – long after Keir Starmer had become Prime Minister and started appointing his Cabinet – that Reform gained their fifth and final seat – South Basildon & East Thurrock – which they won by 98 votes after a recount. The Tories fell from first to third place in this Essex constituency. The winner James McMurdock is by far the youngest of Reform’s MPs, and is local to Basildon.

Adnan Hussain in Blackburn was among four Gaza-focused independent MPs elected

Elsewhere there were several indications of just how divided multiracial Britain has become. On a generally disastrous night for the Tories they managed a handful of successes based on racial and religious divisions. In Leicester East a Hindu Conservative, Shivani Raja, gained the seat from Labour, whose vote was split by two non-White former Labour MPs, Claudia Webbe and Keith Vaz. Shadow Cabinet member Jon Ashworth lost Leicester South to a Gaza-focused independent. In Chingford & Woodford Green, veteran Conservative Iain Duncan Smith survived because a Muslim candidate split the Labour vote.

It’s now clear that the Muslim rebellion against Labour has been more effective (in terms of seats) than the White rebellion. Asian independents won Blackburn, Dewsbury & Batley, Birmingham Perry Barr and Leicester South – and very nearly took even more sensational scalps, finishing close behind the ambitious Labour politician Wes Streeting in Ilford North and the celebrity backbencher Jess Phillips in Birmingham Yardley. After Jeremy Corbyn retained Islington North, the total strength of Gaza-focused independents will be five MPs in the new Parliament, the same as Reform UK.

There will be four Green MPs (up from one in the previous Parliament), after Greens gained Bristol West from Labour, and Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire from the Tories, adding to their old stronghold Brighton Pavilion.

Jim Allister became the first North Antrim MP for more than half a century from outside the Paisley family.

The UK’s greatest political earthquake was in North Antrim, where Jim Allister – leader of Traditional Unionist Voice – defeated Ian Paisley, Jr., of the DUP, despite Mr Allister having been shamefully betrayed by Nigel Farage at the start of the campaign, when Farage unilaterally tore up a deal between Reform UK and TUV.

Jim Allister’s stunning success, and the parallel victory of TUV-backed independent Alex Easton who gained North Down from the much hyped Alliance Party, will surely signal the long overdue realignment of Unionism.

This website and the next edition of H&D will analyse the results and the new Starmer government further during the next few days.

We shall play our part in the necessary examination of where we stand as a movement, and how we can best move forward in a new political era.

Farage shows his true colours: a spiv and a traitor

During the past 48 hours Nigel Farage has shown why no true nationalist should support Reform UK.

Regular readers will know that we were already disgusted by Farage’s blatant betrayal of Traditional Unionist Voice, the party with which Farage’s Reform UK struck an electoral pact at the start of this year’s General Election campaign, only to see Farage unilaterally tear up the deal within weeks.

Reform UK went on to betray one candidate after another, throwing them under a bus at the slightest hint of anti-woke opinions, and in effect kneeling – BLM-style – in obeisance to ‘anti-racist’ lobby groups.

Yesterday one of the party’s major donors addressed Reform UK’s largest rally of the campaign. Zia Yusuf – a former executive director of Goldman Sachs, whose parents came to the UK from Sri Lanka in the 1980s – is the most public face of Farage’s multiracialism.

Another facet of Farage’s City spiv values – revealing that Reform UK is a true Goldman Sachs party, not a nationalist party – was his response this morning to the success of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN).

Now, let’s be absolutely clear. Le Pen’s movement is not racial nationalist. Even in its previous incarnation as the Front National, under Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen, this was a multiracialist party. I twice attended the FN’s main rally in Paris, where Jean-Marie Le Pen was introduced by a half-African singer.

The entire tradition of French nationalism has always contained a stronger element of multiracialism than our equivalent traditions in the UK. The FN (and to a lesser extent the RN) were always ‘broad church’ parties: they combined Pétainists and Gaullists; racial nationalists and non-Whites; Catholics and pagans. That looks strange to a British nationalist, but that’s how they have always been.

Whereas many H&D readers would criticise Le Pen for not being sufficiently pro-White, Farage criticises her from the opposite angle! He showed his true colours long ago when he said that Le Pen’s movement’s “roots were deep in Vichy” and that “anti-semitism was embedded in its DNA”.

This morning he went further, choosing this moment to denounce Le Pen’s party and proclaim that he preferred the approach of her ‘centrist’ rival Emmanuel Macron.

Farage went so far as to say that a victory for Le Pen’s party would be a “disaster” for France. In effect Farage’s Goldman Sachs party is a natural ally of Macron’s Rothschild party.

The Le Pen dynasty is reunited in 2024 – but Nigel Farage regards their entire political tradition as rooted “deep in Vichy” and with “anti-semitism embedded in its DNA”.

The one difference is that Farage wobbles all over the place when he is asked about Ukraine and Russia.

As we have previously exposed, Farage has a long history of making some token reference to Putin being a dictator, but then effectively spreading softcore Putinist propaganda, before flipping back to ‘cover’ himself by making some meaningless anti-Putin statement.

He has continued this policy during the past fortnight. It’s difficult to say whether this reflects Farage’s lack of formal education – he went straight from school to become a City spiv – or whether there is a more sinister agenda at work.

The one certainty is that Farage’s response to Le Pen does not reflect any ‘responsible’ attitude on his part to fiscal matters. Reform UK’s manifesto is by far the most irresponsible document of the entire election campaign, making a string of impossible, uncosted pledges.

Farage’s underlying values, however, remain those of a City spiv. He has absolutely no interest in working people. While we can criticise Marine Le Pen for many things – multiracialism, Zionism, abandonment of some French nationalist traditions, betrayal of her comrades – we must admit that she has aligned the RN strongly with the interests of French workers who have consistently been betrayed by the political and financial ‘elite’.

Farage and Reform UK are the opposite. They stand for crony capitalism, not British workers – and this is the main reason why their immigration policy would simply continue the Great Replacement, which serves the interests of global capitalism.

H&D readers should avoid Reform UK like the plague.

This week’s election will signal the death of the Conservative Party, but Reform UK represents no improvement, and if anything serves to discredit the broader nationalist cause.

We are in a time of transition, but the positive development is that a small number of genuine patriots are fighting for a real anti-immigration policy. These are the candidates of the British Democrats and English Democrats, plus independent candidates in some constituencies such as Dr Andrew Emerson in Chichester and Joe Owens in Liverpool Wavertree.

Of course these are only ripples of resistance compared to the tidal wave that is crashing down on the French political establishment. But we have something to build on, in the new political era that will dawn on Friday.

The message is simple: reject Farage, and start building a radical alternative above the ruins of the old order.

Julian Assange is no hero

His strangely assorted fan club of ageing hippies, libertarians, and Putinists have greeted Julian Assange as a hero today, after the Wikileaks founder was released from prison following a plea bargain with US authorities.

Assange admitted breaching the Espionage Act, but having already spent five years in an English prison awaiting extradition, was allowed to fly home to Australia.

Due to Hillary Clinton being among the most famous victims of data published by Wikileaks, some H&D readers will be tempted to see Assange as “our enemy’s enemy” – but he is no friend of British nationalists, and he is no hero. Nor is he any sort of champion of “free speech”. There are many people in Europe (including in the UK) who, unlike Assange, are imprisoned solely because of expressing their opinions, but neither Assange nor his fan club ever lifted a finger to defend the likes of Sam Melia, Vincent Reynouard, or Ursula Haverbeck.

We should never forget that Assange eagerly published the home addresses of British National Party members, thus putting their families at risk from physical attack or intimidation from “anti-fascists”.

No doubt this (like his other “leaks”) had the blessing of Assange’s allies in the Russian intelligence service.

Assange’s ‘trans’ accomplice ‘Chelsea Manning’ – the former US Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning – was arrested in 2010 and imprisoned until ‘her’ sentence was commuted by Obama in 2017.

Wikileaks acted for years as the de facto partner of Putin’s espionage network. It was entirely fitting that Assange faced conviction and imprisonment under the Espionage Act.

At no time did Assange act as a bona fide investigative journalist. His method was simply to obtain vast quantities of data (sometimes with the help of Russian intelligence) and then publish it, without any assessment of its value, and without any consideration of those whose lives he turned upside down.

Unfortunately the “dissident right” in the UK and US contains many who would fit Lenin’s appraisal as “useful idiots” – useful that is for “anti-fascists” and for the Kremlin. They are certainly no use to nationalism.

The rational nationalist response to Julian Assange would be to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. Let us hope that he never sets foot in the UK again, and that we hear no more of this cynical, irresponsible opportunist.

Casino politics and lack of honour – Sunak’s Tories and Farage’s Reform UK show they are unfit for office

Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives and their main challenger on the ‘right’ – Reform UK leader Nigel Farage – have dragged UK politics to a new low: a level of dishonour that combines farce and tragedy.

First the farce. Every day now brings a fresh story of senior Tory officials, MPs, or others in close contact with the Prime Minister, having placed bets on the election date. Now of course all this could be pure coincidence and they might not have been acting on inside information! Police investigations must eventually establish the truth.

What we already know for certain, is that had these people been professional footballers or involved in the management of a football club, and had placed bets on football, they would automatically face a lengthy ban, regardless of whether it could be ‘proven’ that they had cheated in any way.

The reason should be obvious. But for those close to Rishi Sunak, their first thought as the election approached wasn’t “how can I apologise to the British people for the mistakes of the past five years, and promise to do better if re-elected?” No – their first thought was: “how can I line my pockets for one more time, before being turfed out of office?”


The Prime Minister with his Parliamentary Private Secretary, Craig Williams, who is among those under investigation for betting on the election date

With the Tories in total collapse, it’s understandable that many lifelong Tory voters are turning to Nigel Farage and his apparently radical ‘right-wing’ party, Reform UK.

But the truth is that Farage himself is dishonourable on a level that dwarfs the petty cheating and incompetence of Sunak’s team.

During and immediately after the Second World War, a new stereotype entered British culture and was often portrayed in comedy shows of that era. The “spiv” was a man who sought to make a fast profit out of others’ misfortunes, in an age of rationing and shortages. In real life, a disproportionate number of “spivs” were Jews – as was well known to the public at the time and has been established by modern historical research.

Following the so-called “big bang” liberalisation of the City of London in the mid-1980s, a new generation of spivs entered British life. While most of these operated within the law, they also operated with absolutely no regard for the UK’s national interest. The young Rishi Sunak profited from hedge fund speculations against UK banks during the financial crisis of the 2000s. And long before that, Nigel Farage’s first career was in the London Metals Exchange: his career was only modestly successful compared to Sunak’s, and eventually his commodities brokerage Farage Limited went bankrupt.

Farage’s blatantly dishonest spivvery has been in the political rather than the financial world.

His biggest con is his pretence of being anti-immigration. The slavishly pro-Farage channel GB News and much of the press have collaborated in this deception – but the truth is that Farage has always “welcomed immigration”, as he once told the European Parliament. Farage’s team promoted the idea of Brexit to UK-based Indians (including restaurant owners) on the basis that leaving the EU would mean that the UK could replace European workers with Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers.

And so it has turned out: with an extra helping of Africans added on top.

Farage and Reform UK now promise not to end immigration, still less to reverse the tide of immigration, but only to have a “one in, one out” policy: which of course would mean for the most part replacing White Britons and Europeans with non-White immigrants. Last year, for example, this Reform UK policy would have meant admitting 600,000 migrants.

None of this should come as any surprise. Farage is fundamentally committed to the toxic ideology of “free market” capitalism, which is essentially anti-nationalist, pro-immigration, and anti-White.

Those who are serious about ending immigration have two parties who fortunately are not standing against each other, and who in a small number of constituencies are offering voters a genuine patriotic alternative – the British Democrats and the English Democrats. Each of these parties is run by honest leaders who are genuinely committed on the immigration issue. Unfortunately they are standing in fewer than twenty constituencies, but they are sending a clear signal of the direction that UK politics could and should take in the post-Conservative era.

Could Farage and Reform UK be at least a step in the right direction?

No: because they are basically crooked.

Even aside from the immigration issue, Farage has shown himself to be untrustworthy on two other central issues of 2024.


Richard Tice and Jim Allister announcing the pact between Reform UK and TUV, which within weeks was torn up by Nigel Farage, demonstrating that he cannot be trusted on any level.

Just a few weeks ago, Reform UK entered a pact with Traditional Unionist Voice, the party led by Jim Allister KC which promises to take Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK into a genuine Brexit, rather than allowing a border in the Irish Sea – a trade barrier separating one part of the UK from the rest.

This sea border has come about because of a treacherous deal negotiated by Rishi Sunak’s government with the misnamed ‘Democratic Unionist Party’ earlier this year. At first it seemed that Reform UK agreed with TUV on a common platform of a real Brexit and no sea border. A pact was publicly announced on this basis.

But no sooner had the campaign begun than Nigel Farage unilaterally tore up this pact. In two constituencies – including the one being contested by TUV leader Jim Allister – Farage instead endorsed DUP candidates and betrayed his supposed TUV allies.

Quite incredibly, Farage was thus endorsing two of the very people who sold out Brexit and sold out the people of Northern Ireland.

He was able to do this because Reform UK has no genuine existence as a political party. It is a business rather than a constitutional party, and as the owner of that business, Farage can do whatever he likes.

He can issue a manifesto whose tax promises are the most dishonest and innumerate of any party; he can recruit or expel candidates on a whim; and he can make up policy as he goes along, to impress his gullible target audience of ageing reactionaries.


Nigel Farage campaigning with Rabbi Shneur Odze, one of the then-UKIP leader’s European Parliamentary candidates

And now Farage has committed his foulest betrayal. Not content with betraying White Britons over immigration, and not content with betraying his erstwhile allies in Ulster, Farage now betrays those who are fighting at Europe’s frontier, those who are paying the ultimate price to defend their nation from Kremlin aggression.

Again, this came as no surprise to long-term Farage-watchers. He has for more than a decade been the most dangerous type of Putinist propagandist.

As serious historical students of propaganda know, the most insidious propagandists are not those who blatantly endorse every aspect of those whose interests they (deliberately or otherwise) serve.

Whether in the Second World War or the Cold War, the greatest success for a professional propaganda agency was to get someone to parrot treachery without it being obvious treachery. Thus, communist dupes in the West didn’t openly call for surrendering to Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev – they called for “peace”. Moscow’s front organisations often had names such as “World Peace Council”.

Moreover, it’s been a longstanding practice of invaders and their proxies to call for “peace”, once their initial advances have ground to a halt. “Peace” of this sort rewards the invader and allows his forces to become firmly entrenched.

Those propagandising for an aggressor will do anything to avoid the central issue. They will point fingers in every direction, sometimes contradicting themselves, but always seeking to undermine firm action against the invader. And they will ignore basic historical and political facts.


So it has been with Farage. During 2010-14 (at a time when he was a relatively minor figure in UK politics) the then UKIP leader appeared seventeen times on Putin’s propaganda channel Russia Today.

RT itself was proud to claim that Farage “has been known far longer to the RT audience than to most of the British electorate”.

And he swiftly rewarded his Moscow friends. During an earlier Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Putin grabbed Crimea, Farage typically maintained that the Kremlin despot had been “provoked” and absurdly insisted that the European Union had “blood on its hands in Ukraine”.

The reality was (and is) that NATO and the EU had been far too weak, and it was their unwillingness to risk “provoking” Putin a few years earlier, when they failed to respond to appeals from Ukrainian nationalists for an alliance against Moscow, that encouraged Putin’s imperialism.

Ever since then, Farage’s cynical tactic has been to utter a few words distancing himself from Putin’s dictatorial behaviour, but then going on to endorse his foreign policy.

In 2014, asked which world leader he most admired, Farage replied: “as an operator”, Putin.

His short-lived successor as UKIP leader, Diane James, went further, describing Putin as one of her political “heroes”. Yet another UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall, agreed that Putin was “generally getting it right in many areas”.

In 2017 Farage again made token comments distancing himself from Putin’s imprisonment of journalists, etc., before saying that Putin was “a strong national leader”.

In 2018 speaking to an interviewer from Newsweek magazine, Farage was even more explicit in his policy of surrender to the Kremlin: “We would have done better to recognize that there are some big issues on which we have a shared interest with Russia. Instead, our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.”

Following Putin’s notorious interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Farage argued that the West should have discussed a “deal” with Putin immediately after the invasion. In other words, right from day one, Farage’s policy was not to resist the invader. His policy instead was one of craven surrender: a “deal”.

Absurdly, Farage’s argument was (and remains) that “our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.” Not that the Kremlin was being “confrontational” by invading its neighbour, but that others had been “confrontational” in not bowing to Putin’s expansionist agenda.

Last week during his interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Farage expanded on this theory.

We must remember that Farage is a man of limited formal education. He has never studied Russian or Ukrainian history; he has no personal experience of the region; and he has absolutely no academic training in military history, intelligence history, or strategic studies.

Yet like golf club reactionaries everywhere, as they prop up the bar and regale their fellow Rotarians, Farage is an instant expert and never admits that he might ever have been wrong about anything important.

Once again (as he has repeated since that interview) Farage made token, insincere, and weak comments distancing himself from Putin’s invasion. But he then went on to claim that the invasion had somehow been “provoked” by the West.

Essentially, therefore, Farage’s message can be paraphrased as – yes, the war is unfortunate and wrong, but the basic fault lies not with Putin but with the West: we should have given Putin most of what he wanted without war, and then the invasion wouldn’t have been necessary!


True strategic genius from the man who went straight from school to the London Metals Exchange without pausing to obtain an education.

When faced by an aggressor, says Nigel, don’t “provoke” him; don’t stand up him; instead – surrender in advance!

What Farage has never understood (or in his contrarian pursuit of American-style conspiracy theory, simply doesn’t want to understand) is that Putin was responding to a perception of Western weakness, not Western ‘provocation’.

The Kremlin misread signals and misread the determination of Ukrainian patriots.

Putin was correct that the Western response to his invasion would be slow. What he didn’t realise was that Ukrainian resistance would be so effective that his troops would grind to a halt, far short of their objective, and that an alliance of his neighbours, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, would put some backbone into the cowardly ‘West’.

Farage – the ultimate political spiv – will never understand true patriotism. His ‘free market’, quick-profit mentality is fundamentally anti-nationalist and anti-White. He betrays his own political allies without a second thought.

To Farage, all this is ‘clever’ politics. To the rest of us, it is rank treachery which confirms that he is unfit for office.

Nigel Farage and Reform UK will doubtless play their part in destroying the Conservative Party – but if he and even a tiny group of Reform UK MPs are elected to Parliament, they will rapidly self-destruct.

Farage and his ilk are not and never will be part of a ‘transition’ to a better, patriotic politics. They are part of the problem: wholly unfit for office.

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.

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