Gangster president declares war on Iran

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.

Nationalist-Populist Success in Uruguay

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.

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?

Europe’s leaders shamelessly exploit the memory of the fallen: 1918-2018

One hundred years ago today the guns fell silent across Europe. Yet despite all the promises such as “homes fit for heroes”, November 11th 1918 was not the start of a European renaissance.

Instead the past century has seen a steady crumbling of European civilization. Community solidarity has withered; violent crime has overtaken our capitals; and the very people walking our streets would have seemed unimaginably alien to the Britons of 1918.

One thing they would have recognised: lying and self-interested politicians who have abused this weekend’s centenary events to advance their own agendas.

Yet the very fact that the likes of French President Emmanuel Macron have been impelled to advance their own anti-nationalist, one world programmes – exploiting the memory of countless dead Europeans who would not have signed up to one word of that agenda – shows that these elites are no longer feeling secure.

All those shameless liars who carried wreaths of poppies this weekend know that they are steadily being exposed. In Italy, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, France and many other nations the tide is turning.

In 2018 we know that the victims of Europe’s two disastrous 20th century civil wars did not die for freedom: for what ‘freedom’ is there today in a Europe that is (temporarily) under the thumb of politically correct laws, and where today’s surviving ex-servicemen are treated with contempt – in some cases even threatened with prosecution for their brave anti-terrorist campaigns of the 1970s.

Yet even in a world where ex-servicemen are driven to suicide by the societies they fought for, we can still be moved by the spirit of Laurence Binyon’s poem written more than a century ago.

Hoax papers expose academic corruption

Three American academics have exposed the intellectual corruption prevalent among their colleagues, in what Niall Ferguson (writing in today’s Sunday Times) describes as “one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of academia”.

As Dr Ferguson reveals: “In the space of ten months they dashed off twenty spoof articles and submitted them to established journals in the fields of cultural studies, identity studies and critical theory.”

All of these fake papers were “outlandish or intentionally broken in significant ways”, including “some little bit of lunacy or depravity”.

Nevertheless numerous papers were accepted for publication by officially recognised academic journals. For example, an article titled ‘Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon’ written in the name of a fake author called ‘Helen Wilson’ was accepted and published in February this year by Gender, Place & Culture, which describes itself as “a journal of feminist geography”.

Two of this journal’s editors – Katherine Brickell of Royal Holloway, University of London, and Kanchana Ruwanpura of the University of Edinburgh – have research positions at UK universities, state-funded via the Economic and Social Research Council. The editorial board of Gender, Place & Culture includes Professor Patricia Daley, who is ‘Professor of the Human Geography of Africa’ at Oxford and a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.

Berlin march calls for release of documents on Rudolf Hess murder

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton addressed a rally in Berlin on Saturday 19th August, calling for the release of official British documents reporting on the death of Rudolf Hess, thirty years ago this week.

More than 1,000 demonstrators marched in the Spandau district of Berlin, close to the site of the infamous prison where Hess was incarcerated until his death aged 93 in 1987. By then he had been in Allied prisons since 1941, when he flew to Scotland in an effort to negotiate peace between Britain and Germany.

Officially this death was recorded as a suicide: despite Hess’s advanced age and physical infirmity, he was ruled to have hanged himself from a window latch with an electrical cord. His family commissioned independent medical advice which drew attention to evidence that Hess had been murdered. (British historian David Irving has since revealed a conversation with the Berlin prosecutor Detlev Mehis, who admitted that the murderer was U.S. serviceman Tony Jordan.)

Two Foreign Office files containing the official investigation of Hess’s death by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch – FCO 161/69 and FCO 161/70 – remain secret, under a regulation normally used for sensitive intelligence material.

Marchers this weekend came from many parts of Germany and included representatives of numerous parties and groups.  The event was chaired by the NPD’s national organiser Sebastian Schmidtke and speakers included the NPD’s Dr Olaf Rose (a former member of the regional parliament of Saxony) as well as H&D‘s Peter Rushton and international guests from France and Finland.

German media admitted that this was the largest nationalist event in Berlin for many years. ‘Antifascists’ failed to prevent the march and failed to drown out the speakers.

‘Antifascist’ arson attacks damaged signalling equipment on railway lines near Berlin, which meant that hundreds of marchers were unable to reach the city. Around 250 comrades including NPD vice-president Thorsten Heise from Thuringia held a spontaneous demonstration in the Falkensee district, after the railway arson prevented them from reaching Spandau.

Due to the many oppressive laws in modern Germany, marchers and speakers at this weekend’s event were severely restricted in what they could say, or what symbols could be displayed.

However we were able to convey a clear message that murder can never be forgotten, and that justice demands the full disclosure of the true circumstances surrounding the incarceration and murder of Rudolf Hess.

Click here for the full text of Peter Rushton’s speech in Spandau.

H&D assistant editor’s speech at Berlin demo

For today’s Left, racial self-hatred is bigger than class war

In a new article for America’s most famous liberal journal The Nation, Tom Hayden endorses Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – his reasons for doing so indicate how for the White Left worldwide, hatred of their own race has become the all-important issue, transcending any socialist or liberal ideology.

Hayden (now 76) is one of the veteran leaders of the American Left, perhaps best known to the general public as the ex-husband of actress and anti-war activist Jane Fonda.

In his latest article he admits that he was an early supporter of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, and has criticised Hillary Clinton for her apparent eagerness to support American involvement in even more foreign wars, her closeness to the financial elite, and her ambiguous stand on environmental issues.

Yet all of these concerns are transcended for Hayden by one overriding issue: race.  Whereas Sanders has addressed himself primarily to the concerns of White working-class voters, Clinton still enjoys overwhelming support among Blacks, and to a slightly lesser extent Hispanics.

Hayden confesses:

I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the California primary for one fundamental reason. It has to do with race. My life since 1960 has been committed to the causes of African Americans, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, and freedom struggles in Vietnam, Cuba and Latin America. In the environmental movement I start from the premise of environmental justice for the poor and communities of color. My wife is a descendant of the Oglala Sioux, and my whole family is inter-racial.

So White workers in America now have no excuse. They know where they stand. Even Tom Hayden – among the most celebrated semi-socialist, Marxist influenced activists of the 1960s Left – openly argues that his political choices are governed above all by racial self-hatred.

Australia’s first Jewish Prime Minister

This morning lawyer and tycoon Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister of Australia after a successful internal party coup against incumbent PM Tony Abbott.

Turnbull is a well known republican and supporter of gay rights, so the two most obvious policy changes are likely to include moves towards Australia ditching the monarchy and embracing gay marriage.

Less well known is the new Prime Minister’s Jewish heritage, as reported two years ago by the Australian Jewish News.

In this connection it is interesting that Turnbull first hit the headlines as lawyer for expatriate MI5 officer Peter Wright, who in the 1980s published his autobiography Spycatcher from his new home in Australia, defying the efforts of Margaret Thatcher’s government to maintain MI5’s traditional secrecy.

The original reason for Wright’s book (which began as a cooperation with recently deceased journalist Chapman Pincher) stemmed from his former MI5 colleague Lord Rothschild, who encouraged Wright’s allegations against ex-MI5 boss Sir Roger Hollis, so as to deflect earlier charges that Rothschild himself had been a traitor.

Down Orwell’s memory hole – ‘Ten Little Niggers’

 

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, the all-powerful Party enforces political correctness by rewriting the past.  Political deviations are rendered impossible by erasing true records of past events, eradicating cultural roots and traditions.

Today the world’s media acts as Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’.

One small but telling example is the worldwide publicity today for a poll to determine the public’s favourite Agatha Christie novel.  The winner – as reported today by practically every English-language news site in the world – was And Then There Were None, which the BBC is now dramatising as a three-part series.

Not a single news site reported that this was not the book’s original title: it was first published in England in 1939 as Ten Little Niggers.  It was only American sensitivity that led to alternative titles for U.S. editions – first as Ten Little Indians, then once this was deemed offensive to ‘Native Americans’ changed again to And Then There Were None – but the book was not retitled in England until 1985.

Such is the progress of political correctness: in the space of just thirty years we have adopted the liberal tyanny that not only forbids such a title as Ten Little Niggers, but insists that today’s audience shouldn’t even know of its existence.

Nick Griffin and fellow nationalists in St Petersburg

Former BNP leader Nick Griffin was among several well known nationalists and defenders of the White cause who attended a conference this weekend in St Petersburg, reported by newspapers including The Independent.

In recent months Mr Griffin has been saying a lot of sensible things about the West’s futile war on President Assad of Syria, and the new “cold war” with President Putin’s Russia.

In his St Petersburg speech, Mr Griffin reportedly said “the survival of Christendom” is “absolutely impossible without the rise of the Third Rome: Moscow.”

In one sense we agree with his analysis: European civilisation would always have benefited from a German-Russian axis, as Bismarck perceived as long ago as the 1870s, which would have prevented the last century’s catastrophic European civil wars and halted our continent’s descent into multi-culti barbarism.

My only real difference with Mr Griffin’s analysis is his residual Islam-obsession, which admittedly is nowhere near as bad as it once was, and is a great improvement on the continued blinkered stance of the EDL and the new BNP leadership.

If you are going to mention the phantom menace of the “Islamic caliphate” when in Russia, of all places, you should be aware that the mid-19th century reinvention of that concept was really a pawn in the “great game” of diplomatic intrigue between Britain and Czarist Russia, further hyped during the First World War by that arch-intriguer Sir Mark Sykes, the British imperial midwife to the Zionist project.

Col. Cyril Wilson – one of the main British architects of the Arab Revolt during the First World War – wrote:
“When we were pro-Turk and anti-Russia we also rallied Indian Moslems to the green flag and filled them with strange ideas regarding the Ottoman Caliphate.”

Sharif Hussein of Mecca, the key British ally in launching the Arab revolt, noted: “Great Britain repeatedly and plainly declared, by writing, her desire to restore the Arab Caliphate.”

While Sir Mark Sykes himself later reflected:
“The caliphate of the Turks was never anything but a name until we boomed it, and it has never been anything but a nuisance to us since we did so.”

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »