Massive Fraud in 2014 South Africa Election

“Democratic” election winner Zuma

(Stephen Goodson reports)
The South African election held on May 7, 2014 surpassed all previous levels of manipulation, bribery, corruption and fraud.  Since the first multi-racial election took place on April 27, 1994 every election result has been rigged in the favour of the African National Congress (ANC).  In an article in the Dutch newspaper Nederlands Dagblad under the title “Verkiezingen Zuid-Afrika oneerlijk: (Elections in South Africa dishonest), former president F.W. de Klerk admitted that he was aware that over one million ballots for the ANC “netjes in stapels” (neatly in piles) were placed in ballot boxes.  He, however, decided not to object as wished “de natie vooruit te helpen” (to help the nation forward).
At that time a perceptive commentator made the observation that as the ANC, a compliant puppet of the international bankers, slowly ran the country into the ground and suffered a consequent drop in support, the party would have to resort to increasing levels of vote rigging in order to stay in power.  In this election the ANC’s share of the vote declined by 3.7% from 65.9% in 2009 to 62.2%.  In terms of the number of votes allegedly received, the decline was a trifling 213,827 from 11,650,748 to 11,436,921.  This marginal decline occurred notwithstanding the fact that 50 % of the population lives below the poverty datum line, there is 40% black unemployment, there are over 16 million persons receiving a poverty reducing social grant, (pop. 52 million) and according to the Gini coefficient South Africa has the most unequal distribution of income in the world at 0.7!  In any other normal society the ANC would have been heavily punished for its appalling record of service delivery, high levels of corruption (R30 billion or $3 billion was unaccounted for in the previous financial year), uncontrollable crime and poor economic growth, and thus suffered a comprehensive defeat.
According to an article in the Mail & Guardian vote rigging was rampant, particularly in the province of Gauteng where Johannesburg is situated.   When it became clear that the ANC was slipping below the 50% barrier, counting was delayed for over 24 hours in order to manipulate the results in its favour.  Independent observers have revealed that many counting slips were not signed off by the counting officer, or where they had been, they were not signed by a party agent.  There were results which had been signed off by auditors, but differed enormously from the scanned slips.  There were also huge differences in the votes cast by opposition parties on the national and provincial lists, which is a clear indication that there had been tampering with the ballot papers.
The head of the Independent Election Commission, whose ironic slogan is “ensuring free and fair elections”, is under investigation for alleged fraud by the National Treasury.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mrs Tlakula was pressurised by government, and in the case of the UBUNTU Party by the Reserve Bank, into ensuring that the correct result was obtained in return for a suspended sentence and a substantial golden handshake.  In this regard it also needs to be mentioned that Jacob Zuma, prior to becoming president of South Africa faced over 700 criminal charges for corruption and racketeering.
One of the major victims of this disgraceful vote rigging was the UBUNTU Party, which offered to the people of South Africa for the first time in its history a proposal to establish a People’s Bank, which would create the nation’s money supply free of debt and interest.  The benefits flowing from a People’s Bank would enable all government infrastructure expenditure to be financed free of interest, home loans at 0% plus a small handling fee, agricultural loans at 0% plus a small handling fee, as in North Dakota, free electricity for domestic consumers as a result of the electricity utility no longer having to pay interest on its loans, lower taxes, zero inflation and near full employment.  The UBUNTU Party launched a sophisticated publicity campaign using leaflets, posters, radio ads in multiple languages, radio interviews, a mobi-fun cell phone campaign, e-mails, t-shirts, you tube clips and a trailer parked all around Johannesburg.  In addition to its existing membership of20,000, the party  received thousands of offers of support and help and built up a supporter base of almost one million.  Despite having a highly successful campaign, the party received a derisory 8,234 votes.
A spokesman for the UBUNTU Party said that they became aware that something was seriously wrong, when one of the party agents, who observed the counting of the international votes – the UBUNTU Party has a strong following overseas – reported that the party had received a quarter of the 18,132 votes cast i.e. 4,500, but only 16 votes were recorded on the scanned receipt.
The UBUNTU Party’s lawyers are currently studying the feasibility of taking this matter to the Constitutional Court with the ultimate purpose of having all the criminals involved in this voting scam exposed.  They will also be canvassing for an increase in the two day time limit to lodge objections to five days, Perspex ballot boxes and for the use of Open Source Free Software in all future elections in order to prevent the endemic problem of vote rigging.

World leaders gather for funeral of Marxist terrorist

Nelson Mandela (centre) with his then wife and fellow terrorist Winnie (left) and Joe Slovo, head of the South African Communist Party.

Today in Johannesburg political and religious leaders from around the world are gathering to pay their final respects to Nelson Mandela, a man who was elevated to virtual sainthood during the last 25 years. Some of those leaders will be hypocrites such as the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who as a young Tory activist was perfectly happy to take a free holiday to South Africa paid for by a propaganda outfit of Mandela’s enemies in the old South African government. Others will be naive but sincere liberals, who believe the “anti-apartheid” movement to have been the great moral cause of their lifetime.

In fact there are only two political/historical subjects that have been taken out of normal debate and given a quasi-religious status, so that it is regarded as grossly offensive or even criminal to express a different view: the Holocaust and Nelson Mandela.

This is all the more peculiar when one realises that Mandela was a Marxist terrorist, allied to the IRA. In fact the movement he led – the African National Congress – was the most communistic of all African ‘liberation’ movements, and Mandela was personally in charge of its shift towards a more pro-Moscow and violent approach.

As has recently been documented by the British historian Dr Calder Walton in his book Empire of Secrets, many African leaders linked themselves with White Marxists as well as liberals as part of their advance to power, while in fact having no real ideology other than personal advancement. Once they had become rulers of their ‘independent’ post-imperial states, they almost always decided that a secret relationship with British intelligence would be more profitable than fellow travelling with Moscow.

A slightly earlier book – External Mission: The ANC in Exile, by Prof. Stephen Ellis, published in 2011 – proved that Mandela and the ANC were an exception, developing especially close ties to Moscow.  During his trial in 1963 – after which he was jailed for life, convicted of leading a terrorist conspiracy – Mandela denied being a Communist Party member.

Yet Prof. Ellis established that he was not only a member, but a leading activist on the central committee of the South African Communist Party, and that even before he became leader of the ANC he was in charge of the pro-Communist faction within the movement, seeking arms and finance from both Moscow and Beijing. (Eventually the ANC became pro-Soviet, though with a small pro-China faction.)

The ANC’s terrorist wing which Mandela commanded – known as Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) – began a campaign of bombings in December 1961. Mandela and nine of his closest comrades were arrested after a successful operation by South African anti-terrorist police, who arrested them in July 1963 at a farm owned by the Jewish communist Arthur Goldreich. In 1948 Goldreich had served in the elite Palmach wing of the Zionist terrorist group Haganah.

The property and other ANC assets had been purchased via Goldreich and a fellow Jewish communist, lawyer Harold Wolpe.

Even with Mandela in prison, his movement continued its terror campaign and built close ties with two of the 20th century’s most infamous organisations: the East German secret police, the Stasi, who trained ANC members in torture and other methods to be used against opponents in their own ranks; and the IRA, whose experts tutored Mandela’s men in the fine arts of bomb making, so that they could be more efficient in killing South African women and children in a series of terrorist outrages.

Nelson Mandela with fellow terrorists Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams of the IRA. 

One IRA style bombing among many was on Church Street in the centre of Pretoria in 1983, killing 19 and injuring 217. Many more bombs targetted Wimpy bars and supermarkets, such as a shop in Amanzimtoti, Natal, in 1985 killing five civilians and injuring 40.

By this time Western leaders had ceased caring about White civilians in South Africa.  With the Soviet bloc collapsing at the end of the 1980s, London and Washington helped broker a deal between the South African business elite and the ANC, by which Mandela was released from prison and installed in “democratic” power.

Many years earlier Britain’s secret intelligence service MI6 had intervened to prevent Mandela being killed during a planned prison escape. British agent Sir Robert Birley, former headmaster of Eton, foiled the plot and became an important MI6 link to Mandela and the ANC leadership, whose Marxist ideals did not prevent such opportunistic alliances.



Nick Griffin’s road to Damascus

A younger Nick Griffin (left) with his then National Front colleague Derek Holland visiting Libya in 1988.

Today’s Times reports the arrival of Nick Griffin in Lebanon, and no doubt tomorrow’s papers will update the story now that the BNP leader has crossed the border into Syria and arrived in Damascus.

We have made many criticisms of Nick Griffin over the years, but several of his recent statements would not be out of place in Heritage and Destiny!

  • Distancing the BNP from the cretinous Zionist thuggery of the English Defence League.
  • Arguing against successive British governments’ wars for Israel.
  • Defending the Syrian government against relentless Western propaganda, and exposing the terrorism of anti-Assad rebels.
  • Endorsing the Lebanese Shia party Hezbollah in recent online comments.

That said, The Times is justified in pointing out the remarkable contortions and contradictions in Mr Griffin’s comments on the Middle East over the years.

During the mid-1980s he was a leading spokesman for the most militantly anti-Zionist faction of British nationalism, which became the “political soldier” faction of the National Front, and eventually the “International Third Position”.  In this capacity he visited the Libyan capital Tripoli in 1988 and sought funds from Col. Gadaffi.

As leader of the BNP after 1999 he remained pro-Gadaffi, but only because he saw the Libyan dictator as anti-Islamist, and by now Mr Griffin was hostile to all Muslims – apparently endorsing neo-conservative notions of a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West.

In January 2009 for example Mr Griffin criticised the BBC for “anti-Israel bias” and condemned “neo-nazi cranks” within nationalism who opposed Israel, saying that the destruction of the Zionist state would “inspire and radicalise a whole new generation of Jihadist fanatics”.

Mr Griffin now concluded that the survival of Israel was “in our clear national interest”.

Only a year or two ago, Mr Griffin was still condemning both the “Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran”.  Now he seems to have decided (correctly as it happens) that only the Saudi Wahhabis should be criticised (though in H&D‘s view he should go a lot further in his historical analysis of this phenomenon).

Some cynics might argue that Mr Griffin has no genuine ideological (still less scholarly) interest in the region, and is motivated solely by the search for cheap headlines and potential donors.

But perhaps we should not be too cynical, and as Mr Griffin follows the road to Damascus we should remember the words of St Luke’s gospel:

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.


Nelson Mandela proven to be a Communist Party member

After years of lies in which liberal opinion across the world elevated him to sainthood, the terrorist leader Nelson Mandela has been exposed as a member of the Communist Party whose movement – the African National Congress (ANC) – took bomb making lessons from the IRA and was trained in interrogation techniques by the infamous East German Stasi.

A new book by the British historian Prof. Stephen Ellis (former editor of the respected newsletter Africa Confidential) has established the truth by examining previously secret minutes from the South African Communist Party (SACP).  At his trial in 1963, it was alleged that Mandela was a Communist Party member as well as leader of the ANC’s terrorist wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation). Mandela denied this at the trial, and his denials have since been echoed by ANC apologists worldwide.

As Prof. Ellis explains:
“I think most people who supported the anti-apartheid movement just didn’t want to know that much about his background. Apartheid was seen as a moral issue and that was that. But if real proof had been produced at the time, some might have thought differently.”

The new book External Mission: The ANC in Exile was launched last week at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, and can be purchased here.

Prof. Ellis’s startling revelations were reported in the Sunday Telegraph on 9th December.

Now that Mandela’s Communist and IRA links have been proved by the most serious scholarly analysis of the ANC’s history, we can see the truth of the observation by the late Dr Frederik van Zyl Slabbert, who wrote:
“one thing the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ South Africa have in common is a passion for inventing history.  History is not seen as a dispassionate inquiry into what happened, but rather as a part of political mobilisation promoting some form of collective self-interest.”

Who knows what further political myths could be shattered by a dispassionate inquiry into real history?

Such an inquiry might begin by looking at the background of the South African Communist Party leaders who recruited and promoted Mandela.  As the Jewish Journal commented last year:
“Jews were disproportionately found on the front lines of the internal resistance movement.”

These included a series of Communist Party leaders commemorated in this special issue of postage stamps, including Hymie and Esther Barsel, Rusty and Hilda Bernstein, Ruth First and Joe Slovo, who headed both the ANC’s terrorist wing and the Communist Party itself.

Winnie Mandela, Nelson Mandela and Communist leader Joe Slovo

MI6 and Iranian nukes – don’t believe the hype!

MI6 chief Sir John Sawers: whose agenda is served by hyping the Iranian nuclear 'threat'

MI6 chief Sir John Sawers: whose agenda is served by hyping the Iranian nuclear 'threat'?

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph carried a dramatic front page headline claiming that MI6 has so far stopped Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, and that the Iranians are now only a couple of years away from obtaining their own nukes.

But Telegraph readers should beware of the hype and should be asking themselves whose interests are really served by all this hysteria about Iran.  The claims were supposedly made by the MI6 chief Sir John Sawers, speaking to a hundred civil servants at a conference in London last week.  Yet in reality intelligence professionals have repeatedly agreed that Iran hasn’t even decided to start a nuclear weapons programme.  The considered judgment of both the CIA and MI6 is that Iran halted its early stages of nuclear weapons research way back in 2003, and hasn’t started it up again.

Political agitation forced the CIA to reopen their investigation: but they again concluded that there was no Iranian nuclear weapons programme.  One CIA source told the New York Times that even the Israeli spy agency Mossad agreed with this conclusion: “Mossad does not disagree with the U.S. on the weapons program. There is not a lot of dispute between the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities on the facts.”

So what is actually going on here? It seems that the Daily Telegraph – together with some Tory politicians such as former Defence Secretary Liam Fox – is determined to push the political agenda of the Israeli government, beating the drum for military conflict with Iran at every opportunity.

Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan has warned against attacking Iran, but hardliners in the Israeli government such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagree with their own intelligence chiefs.  Just like Tony Blair and George Bush at the start of the Iraq war, they are prepared to ignore the facts and are determined on a military showdown.

The key fact that such lobbyists ignore is that there is only one nuclear power in the Middle East, and that is Israel itself – a country that obtained nuclear weapons by subterfuge and remains adamantly opposed to any form of international inspection. They even kidnapped and imprisoned one of their own nuclear scientists, Mordechai Vanunu, after he dared tell the truth to the British press.

And now – while accusing of Iran of terrorism – Israel openly boasts to friendly journalists of its role in murdering Iranian scientists.

Its time for our government to start putting our own country’s interests first: that means avoiding yet another bloody, illegal and disastrously costly war.

Afghanistan’s turning point: bring our troops home now


This morning (Sunday 15th April) there seems to be a coordinated attack by Taliban forces on targets in the Afghan capital Kabul, including the U.S. Embassy.

No doubt eventually these attacks will be repulsed, but nevertheless this is a significant turning point that prompts an obvious historical comparison.

In January 1968 (during the traditional Lunar New Year celebration known as Tet) Viet Cong insurgents backed by communist North Vietnam launched an offensive against South Vietnamese and American forces.  This went down in history as the Tet Offensive.

Major targets of the Tet Offensive included the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, the South Vietnamese presidential palace and the radio station.  Eventually the communist forces were beaten back with heavy casualties.  But this wasn’t the point.

The point was that while the American public were being told that the insurgents were being defeated and the situation was coming under control, the Tet Offensive proved that in fact the Viet Cong had the ability to strike even high profile targets in the capital.

It should then have become obvious that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, in that the Viet Cong could only be held at bay by continuing, indefinite commitment of U.S. troops.

So it is today in Afghanistan.  British and American forces are not going to be defeated in a conventional military sense.  But they aren’t going to defeat the Taliban either.

Today’s offensive should be recognised as the Afghan Tet.

Tragically the lesson wasn’t learned in 1968, and the Vietnam War continued until the ignominious American withdrawal in 1975.

Are our rulers going to wait another seven years, with countless further casualties, before a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan?  There is an alternative.  A troop withdrawal plan should begin imminently, accompanied by bringing in the two major regional powers – Russia and Iran – to broker an agreed peace settlement for Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region.

French nationalist leader’s Presidential challenge

Marine Le Pen is likely to poll around 15% in this year's French presidential election, but is very unlikely to qualify for the second round run-off

Marine Le Pen is likely to poll around 15% in this year's French presidential election, but is very unlikely to qualify for the second round run-off

Since the mid-1980s the French Front National (National Front) has been the most successful nationalist party in Europe. The FN leader Jean-Marie Le Pen shocked the political establishment in 2002 when he finished ahead of the Socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin, and qualified for the second round “run-off” ballot. Le Pen is now 83 years old and has retired from the party leadership, succeeded by his daughter Marine. Can she pull off a similar (or even better) surprise result in 2012?


Jean-Marie Le Pen contested the French presidency five times and was runner-up in 2002.

French presidential elections are held in two stages. The first ballot on 22nd April involves ten candidates:

  • President Nicolas Sarkozy is seeking re-election after five years in the Elysée Palace.  Of half-Jewish origin, Sarkozy leads the centre-right Gaullist party, although he is the first French president born after the Second World War and to have had no personal connection to the politics of Gen. De Gaulle’s era.
  • Socialist candidate François Hollande is the main challenger and until recently seen as the almost certain winner this year.  During the campaign opinion polls have shown Hollande losing support to the far left.
  • Marine Le Pen of the Front National is likely to finish third, though in the early stages of the campaign there seemed an outside chance that she could overtake Sarkozy and get into a run-off against Hollande.
  • Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a former Socialist government minister who looks set to be the most successful far left candidate since the old Communist Party.  Recent polls show him running neck and neck with Le Pen and challenging for third place.
  • François Bayrou is a perennial candidate of the centre-right, seen as leading a more moderate form of conservatism.  He served as education minister in conservative governments during the 1990s, and has twice been a presidential candidate previously, finishing third with 18.6% in 2007.
  • Eva Joly – the Green presidential candidate this year – is a lawyer noted for anti-corruption investigations.  The strength of the far left means that the Greens are a lot weaker in France than in Germany, and Joly will struggle to gain more than 2%.
  • Nicolas Dupont-Aignan leads the closest present French equivalent to UKIP and is a former member of Sarkozy’s party.  His campaign has made little impact and he is likely to gain only about 1%.
  • There are two minor candidates of the far left, the Trotskyist Nathalie Arthaud and the semi-Trotskyist Philippe Poutou, but they have been overshadowed this year by the more mainstream far left candidature of Mélenchon.  While the latter might poll as high as 15% and could even overtake Le Pen, Arthaud and Poutou will probably get a combined vote of no more than 2%.
  • Jacques Cheminade is the most unusual of the ten candidates.  He is a radical anti-war and anti-globalisation activist, and leads a movement linked to the 89 year old American Lyndon LaRouche.  Cheminade – a former diplomat – was previously a presidential candidate in 1995, but is unlikely to get more than 0.5%.
  • Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the most serious far left French presidential candidate for a generation, and could poll around 15%, possibly overtaking Le Pen.

    Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the most serious far left French presidential candidate for a generation, and could poll around 15%, possibly overtaking Le Pen.

    Marine Le Pen had a very promising start to her campaign, but an over-emphasis on the supposed threat from radical Islam has blunted the edge of her radical challenge to Sarkozy.  The best guess now is that she will poll somewhere between her father’s 10.4% last time and his most successful first round result of 16.9% in 2002.  It now looks very unlikely indeed that she can qualify for the second round, which is almost certain to be between Sarkozy and Hollande and to end in a Socialist victory for the first time since the days of President Mitterand (1981-95), who until now is the only Socialist to have served as President in the history of the French Fifth Republic.

    Ron Paul – hope for Americans in 2012?

    Ron Paul (left) with Don Black (centre), founder of the Stormfront nationalist internet forum, and his son Derek Black, Republican Party activist and radio host.

    Ron Paul (left) with Don Black (centre), founder of the Stormfront nationalist internet forum, and his son Derek Black, Republican Party activist and radio host.

    The 2012 presidential election might yet break the mould of American politics, with Texas congressman Ron Paul winning substantial support for policies that are the direct opposite of everything that has dominated the Republican Party since the 1950s.

    So-called ‘paleo-conservatives’ have been unsure how far Ron Paul shares their views, since he has shown little interest in the social conservative agenda (such as opposition to ‘gay rights’ and abortion) that was the main plank of previous challenges from the Republican right.  Paul is also opposed to the protectionist economic nationalism espoused by Pat Buchanan, the strongest previous conservative opponent of the Washington insider consensus, though he backed Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign.  He has a radical libertarian commitment to the ideals of the U.S. Constitution, and supports the laissez-faire and sound money theories of the Austrian economic and political theorists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

    While libertarianism might seem the opposite of racial nationalism, there can be little doubt that Paul’s determination to cut the federal government’s bloated spending programmes would in practice advance the interests of White Americans, who now have to subsidise a bloated politically correct bureaucracy supporting welfare-dependant ‘African-Americans’.

    Ron Paul (right) as a young congressman was strongly endorsed by Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan's policies in office diverged from the fiscal conservatism he had espoused in the 1970s.

    Ron Paul (right) as a young congressman was strongly endorsed by Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan's policies in office diverged from the fiscal conservatism he had espoused in the 1970s.

    Paul has also attacked the source of America’s financial troubles, with calls to audit the Federal Reserve.  As he writes on his campaign website:

    The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar.

    During the current financial crisis, terrified by the prospect of Paul harnessing public anger at the bankocracy, Washington’s political establishment has not taken him on directly, but instead has sought to sideline his proposals through detailed amendments in congressional committee sessions.

    Even more radical than his financial arguments – and quite impossible to reconcile with the Ziocon agenda that dominates Capitol Hill – is Ron Paul’s foreign policy agenda.

    Instead of securing our borders, we’ve been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. … America first. That is what Ron Paul‘s national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, safely bring our troops back home, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.

    ronpaul-amcon-coverAs Scott McConnell points out in the February 2012 issue of The American Conservative, this non-interventionist position represents the views of:

    …a group of millions that can claim no prominent leaders in Congress, no regular newspaper columnists to shape and focus its thinking, no significant representation on the cable news shows to validate and amplify its ideas. What might happen if this group found a political voice? More than any other factor, this question accounts for the vehemence of the attacks on Ron Paul.

    Sure enough a mysterious group of internet hackers has targetted the website and emails of the American Third Position, a small party run by Prof. Kevin MacDonald and Dr Tomislav Sunic, to discover “evidence” of connections between Ron Paul and the racial nationalist movement.  The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has denounced him in strong language:

    Ron Paul has a terrible record when it comes to Israel, and when it comes to the issues that matter to the Jewish community and when it comes to his apparent views about Jews in general.

    So far Paul has not won a primary or caucus, but polled 21.5% in Iowa, 23% in New Hampshire, 13% in South Carolina (where his opposition to military spending and lack of interest in social conservatism was expected to be a big handicap), 19% in Nevada, and 27% in Minnesota.

    The social conservative agenda is represented this year by former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, whose Christian Zionism often takes a rabidly apocalyptic tone, at the opposite pole from the Ron Paul / Pat Buchanan foreign policy.

    Pat Buchanan twice entered the Republican nomination race during the 1990s, before finally quitting the party for his doomed Reform Party candidature in 2000.  The 1992 campaign was a quixotic effort to unseat President George H.W. Bush.  Buchanan focused mostly on economic issues and won 37% in the opening New Hampshire primary, eventually gaining 23% of the primary votes as the only serious challenger to Bush.  Eventually backing the Bush campaign, Buchanan used his strong primary performance to influence the 1992 Republican convention, where his speech stressed the social conservative agenda:

    There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

    In 1996 Buchanan fought his strongest campaign in a far more open field of Republican candidates seeking to take on Bill Clinton.  Again his main focus was on the decline of American manufacturing industry, calling for protectionist measures and opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – signed in 1994.  After winning early caucuses in Alaska and Louisiana, and very narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary, Buchanan was overtaken by the better financed campaign of Senate majority leader Bob Dole, but he still ended with 21% of the overall primary votes.

    2000 Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (centre) with Mark Cotterill (left), then a member of his campaign staff and now EFP Chairman, and Edward Cassidy (right), then an activist with the American Friends of the BNP

    2000 Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (centre) with Mark Cotterill (left), then a member of his campaign staff and now EFP Chairman, and Edward Cassidy (right), then an activist with the American Friends of the BNP

    Buchanan was now seen as the leading standard bearer of the conservative movement, and many racial nationalist activists (including H&D editor Mark Cotterill) rallied to his campaign in 2000 when he quit the Republican Party and won the Reform Party nomination.  This third party was founded to support a presidential bid in 1996 by the maverick billionaire Ross Perot, who won support from a broad coalition of voters disenchanted by Washington insider politics, but had never in any meaningful sense been sympathetic to racial nationalism.

    Significantly by 2000 Buchanan was stressing his opposition to ‘neo-conservative’ foreign policy, or what I have termed the Ziocons.  This was more than a year before the events of 9/11 put the Ziocons in full control, but Buchanan and Ron Paul (who rejected early offers to defect to the Reform Party) were already highlighting the danger.  Buchanan explained his resignation from the Republicans in these terms:

    The Republican Party at the national level has ceased to be my party. This divorce began around the end of the Cold War when President (George) Bush declared it to be a New World Order party and began intervening all over the world. While he and I were allies and friends during the Cold War, I just felt that once the Cold War was over the United States should return to a more traditional non-intervention foreign policy.

    Sadly Buchanan took the advice of his sister Bay and purged his campaign of anyone linked to racial nationalism – especially of anyone who had previously backed David Duke – failing to heed the warning of his old friend Sam Francis that this would eviscerate his campaign.  He then compounded his error by opting for a black vice-presidential running mate, former high school teacher Ezola Foster.  The resulting electoral meltdown saw the Buchanan-Foster ticket poll just 0.4%.  Their 449,225 votes nationwide was less than David Duke had polled in the state of Louisiana alone, but was remarkably similar to the 431,750 polled by Ron Paul as a Libertarian candidate for President in 1988.

    The logic of Ron Paul’s policies would push him into breaking away from the Republicans and fighting a third party campaign later this year, but I suspect that (having seen the dismal failure of the 2000 Buchanan campaign) he will be tempted to remain within the party, seek to influence the Republican convention platform, and build a long term presidential campaign for his son, Senator Rand Paul, elected in Kentucky in 2010.

    Perhaps the most important short-term impact of Ron Paul’s campaign this year — and of the continuing activism and campaigning journalism of Pat Buchanan — will be to make it a lot more difficult for the Ziocons to railroad America into military conflict with Iran.  The campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (the latter bankrolled by Jewish casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson), as well as the now defunct campaigns of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, were at the most warmongering end of the Christian Zionist spectrum, and even frontrunner Mitt Romney has generally echoed these themes, in more moderate terms.

    The entire world — not only American conservatism — has cause to be grateful for the voice of sanity coming from just one presidential candidate in 2012: Ron Paul.


    David Duke (centre) speaking at the 1999 St George's Day rally of the American Friends of the BNP with Roy Armstrong (left) and Nick Griffin (right), elected later that year to the BNP leadership. Former Louisiana state representative Duke had previously campaigned for Governor of Louisiana and in 1992 for the Republican presidential nomination.

    Lest we forget


    Lt. William Noel Hodgson

    Serving with the 9th Battalion the Devonshire Regiment, Lieutenant William Noel Hodgson was on the battlefield near the French village of Mametz in June 1916, preparing for what history now records as the Battle of the Somme. The scheduled date for the start of the battle was originally to be August 1916, but had been brought forward to the 29th June, 1916. Owing to bad weather in the week building up to the battle the date of the attack was postponed at 11.00 hours on 28th June and moved by two days to the morning of 1st July 1916.

    It is believed that Noel Hodgson (who was the son of the Bishop of St. Edmundbury and Ipswich and before the war had been studying classics at Christ Church, Oxford) wrote the poem Before Action on 29th June.

    By all the glories of the day
    And the cool evening’s benison
    By that last sunset touch that lay
    Upon the hills when day was done,
    By beauty lavishly outpoured
    And blessings carelessly received,
    By all the days that I have lived
    Make me a soldier, Lord.

    By all of all man’s hopes and fears
    And all the wonders poets sing,
    The laughter of unclouded years,
    And every sad and lovely thing;
    By the romantic ages stored
    With high endeavour that was his,
    By all his mad catastrophes
    Make me a man, O Lord.

    I, that on my familiar hill
    Saw with uncomprehending eyes
    A hundred of thy sunsets spill
    Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice,
    Ere the sun swings his noonday sword
    Must say good-bye to all of this; –
    By all delights that I shall miss,
    Help me to die, O Lord.

    Within an hour of the attack it is said that Lieutanant Hodgson was killed. He was aged 23. He would never again see a sunset.hodgson-grave

    That night Lieutenant Hodgson’s body was retrieved and brought back into the British Front Line position, along with over 160 of his comrades. They were buried in the vicinity of a little wood called Mansell Copse which was in the British Front Line trench position at the start of the day.

    A ceremony was held at the burial site on 4th July. A wooden cross was put up at the time by the survivors of the 9th and 8th Battalions of the Devonshire Regiment. Carved on the cross were the words: “The Devonshires held this trench, the Devonshires hold it still.” The graves were left in this position when the cemeteries were rebuilt after the war. 163 graves are now contained in the cemetery which is named “Devonshire Cemetery”. All but one of the casualties are men of the Devonshire Regiment. Lieutenant Noel Hodgson is buried in Grave reference A. 3.

    Thirty-three years on from Lt. Hodgson’s supreme sacrifice his fellow Englishmen were again called upon to give their lives in a second European civil war.  Fast forward another six or seven decades and their great-grandchildren were despatched to Iraq and Afghanistan in further wickedly destructive conflicts, which like those 20th century wars are leaving our nation in a worse state – morally, financially and strategically – despite a seemingly endless blood sacrifice.

    The England First Party salutes the memory of those who will never grow old.  We hope that their legacy will be a commitment to rebuild an England that they would have been proud of, while ensuring that present and future generations do not share their fate.


    German soldiers in Flanders during World War I: Lt Hodgson's fellow Europeans, drawn into a bloody and pointless civil war with their English cousins

    Who paid for the Defence Minister’s special friend?

    Adam Werritty (left) with Dr Liam Fox (centre) at a meeting in Dubai in 2007

    Adam Werritty (left) with Dr Liam Fox (centre) at a meeting in Dubai in 2007

    With British forces still on the front line after ten years of an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence in London is preoccupied by a scandal which is set to force the resignation of the MoD’s boss.

    Dr Liam Fox – who has been Secretary of State for Defence since the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition took power last year – is facing a host of unanswered questions about the role of his close friend Adam Werritty, who appears to have given the impression to business contacts that he is an adviser to the minister, even though he holds no official position and has not been security vetted.

    The nature of the special relationship between Dr Fox and Mr Werritty is unclear, though rumours about the minister’s private life have circulated among fellow politicians and journalists for many years.

    The Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox is facing pressure for his resignation.

    The Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox is facing pressure for his resignation.

    Mr Werritty ran a “charity” based in Dr Fox’s parliamentary office, which was closed down by the Charity Commission after an investigation into its tax status.  This “charity” – the Atlantic Bridge – was a political forum for extreme neo-conservative views, uniting Thatcherites and their Washington allies.  The Charity Commission closed down Atlantic Bridge because they found that its concentration on promoting the “Special Relationship” was political, not charitable.

    The “Special Relationship” is usually taken to mean the Washington-London axis, but there has always been a third, more important and indubitably more “special” partner: Israel.

    It is the Tel Aviv corner of the “Special Relationship” triangle that should now be in the spotlight as for the first time a British Defence Secretary is likely to be forced to resign by personal scandal.  Who was pulling the strings behind the “special relationship” between Dr Liam Fox and his close friend Adam Werritty?

    Ambassador Matthew Gould with Union Jack yarmulke

    Ambassador Matthew Gould with Union Jack yarmulke

    Since Dr Fox became Defence Secretary just seventeen months ago, his friend Mr Werritty has taken no fewer than nineteen international trips where he has met up with the minister and stayed in some of the world’s most expensive hotels, despite holding no official government position.  Dr Fox has admitted that he and Mr Werritty also met at the Ministry of Defence with the UK Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, who “was known socially to both of us”.  He concedes that this meeting was “inappropriate”.  Mr Gould is the first Jew to have been appointed British Ambassador to the Zionist state.

    The question is now being asked: who paid Mr Werritty’s bills at hotels such as the Shangri-La, Dubai, at £350 a night?  Or his flights for the past year’s international travel to the same venues as the Defence Secretary?  Business flights to these destinations would cost an estimated total of more than £38,000.

    Lorna Fitzsimons (right) at the 2009 BICOM dinner at the Berkeley Hotel, Knightsbridge, with former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk

    Lorna Fitzsimons (right) at the 2009 BICOM dinner at the Berkeley Hotel, Knightsbridge, with former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk

    We do now know that on one of these trips his bill was paid by the pro-Israel lobby group Bicom, headed by former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons.  Bicom paid for Mr Werritty to attend the Herzliya conference in Israel in 2009, where he joined a panel discussion about Iran.

    Unsurprisingly Mr Werritty also met up with his special friend, Defence Secretary Liam Fox, at this Israeli conference.

    Among Liam Fox’s most generous financial backers is the hedge fund tycoon and former Goldman Sachs and Salomon Brothers banker Michael Hintze, who paid for Dr Fox’s travel to Mauritania and Italy in 2007, and to and from Washington, DC, in 2008 and 2011.

    Mr Hintze was also a major donor to Atlantic Bridge and Werritty has a free office at Hintze’s London headquarters.  One of the directors of Werritty’s “defence consultancy”, Security Futures, is Hintze aide Oliver Hylton.  Other directors of this mysterious company (since dissolved) are two who have since become Conservative MPs: the openly gay activist Iain Stewart (a prominent supporter of Conservative Friends of Israel), and the former lobbyist Laura Sandys, daughter of the former defence minister Duncan Sandys.  The latter’s lobbying company Laura Sandys Associates hired Miles Webber, former director of Labour Friends of Israel, to run its parliamentary team.

    Gabby Bertin (centre) seen here leaving Downing Street with the Prime Minister, worked for Atlantic Bridge, the "charity" run by the Defence Minister's special friend Adam Werritty.

    Gabby Bertin (centre) seen here leaving Downing Street with the Prime Minister, worked for Atlantic Bridge, the "charity" run by the Defence Minister's special friend Adam Werritty.

    Also working at Atlantic Bridge was Gabby Bertin, now press secretary to the Prime Minister David Cameron.  Her position with the “charity” was funded by the New York pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

    Other declared financial backers of Dr Fox and his special friend are: Stanley Fink, Alan Howard, Jon Moulton and David and Simon Reuben.

    Let us look a little more closely at these organisations and individuals who are generous supporters of the special friends Fox and Werritty:

    Poju Zabludowicz (centre) hosted the United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner at the Hilton Hotel, London.

    Poju Zabludowicz (centre) hosted the United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner at the Hilton Hotel, London.

    funded by Israeli billionaire Poju Zabludowicz, who is one of the UK’s most prominent Zionist lobbyists and a member of the Jewish Leadership Council.  A misdirected email recently revealed that BICOM regularly briefed journalists to write pro-Israeli articles, including Financial Times leader writer Jonathan Ford and Prospect editor David Goodhart.  The email leak might well cost former MP Lorna Fitzsimons her job at BICOM.

    Michael Hintze (centre) with Conservative MPs Philip Dunne and Dominic Grieve (now Attorney General)

    Michael Hintze (centre) with Conservative MPs Philip Dunne and Dominic Grieve (now Attorney General)

    Michael Hintze
    Grandparents fled the Russian Revolution and settled in China, before his parents fled that country after Mao’s victory in the late 1940s, settling in Australia where Hintze was born.  Educated at a Christian Brothers school before serving as a major in the Australian army, then entering the financial world through Salomon Brothers and Goldman Sachs.  Made millions from “short selling” during the banking crisis. Sponsors a professorial chair in international security studies at the University of Sydney.

    Stanley Fink (Lord Fink)
    Known as the “godfather” of the British hedge fund industry; Vice-President of the Jewish Leadership Council and Co-Treasurer of the Conservative Party; ennobled as Baron Fink of Northwood in 2011. Since 2008 has been in partnership with Tony Blair’s infamous right hand man Lord Levy, as chief executive of International Standard Asset Management.

    Stanley Fink taking his seat in the upper house as Lord Fink of Northwood

    Stanley Fink taking his seat in the upper house as Lord Fink of Northwood

    Alan Howard
    yet another hedge fund tycoon, co-founder of Brevan Howard, the largest hedge fund manager in Europe.  Like Michael Hintze, Mr Howard started his financial career with Salomon Brothers.  A board member of Conservative Friends of Israel, his company is based at the former London headquarters of Marks & Spencer in Baker Street.

    Jon Moulton
    a venture capitalist based in the tax haven of Guernsey.  Noted philanthropic supporter of the charity Jewish Care.

    The mysterious Reuben brothers: financial backers of the British Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox

    The mysterious Reuben brothers: financial backers of the British Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox

    David and Simon Reuben
    secretive property tycoons who added to their fortune as the biggest foreign investors in Russia during the heyday of the mafia oligarchs in the 1990s.  Their web of international shell companies was exposed in a fascinating article for Fortune magazine in 2000.

    Whatever personal scandal lies behind the Defence Secretary’s current problems, British voters are surely entitled to ask: who pays the piper – and who calls the tune?

    « Previous PageNext Page »

    • Find By Category

    • Latest News

    • Follow us on Twitter

    • Follow us on Instagram