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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
‘Democratic’ farce on VE Day
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer chose the perfect day to encapsulate the farce of ‘democratic’ party politics.
Each year on the anniversary of VE Day we have become used to nauseating rhetoric about how millions of Europeans – including 450,000 Britons – died during the Second World War to ‘make the world safe for democracy’.
This year, the man who within a few months will almost certainly become the UK Prime Minister chose the anniversary of VE Day to demonstrate that ‘democratic choice’ is meaningless.
The leader of what is supposedly a party of the ‘democratic left’ yesterday welcomed into Labour’s ranks one of the most ‘right wing’ Conservative MPs in Parliament, Natalie Elphicke.
The press have concentrated on aspects of Mrs Elphicke’s family life, and the allegations that ended her husband’s political career.
But frankly all of that is triviality, compared to the essential political facts.
It is literally impossible to think of a more ‘right wing’ MP in the present Parliament than Mrs Elphicke. Ideologically it would have been more logical for her to defect to Reform UK than to Labour, but clearly she made a cynical decision that Labour had more to offer her.
On Starmer’s side there was an equally cynical decision to welcome her defection, because all that matters to the Labour leader is the point-scoring Westminster game. Mrs Elphicke’s defection damages Prime Minister Sunak and the Conservative Party, therefore it is good news for Starmer. Nothing else counts.
It’s now apparent that only one political stance can prevent someone being welcomed into the Labour Party: criticism of the State of Israel, or any other comment that can be construed as ‘anti-semitic’.
Anyone who passes that test is allowed into Starmer’s party.
The one benefit of this nauseating spectacle is that no-one can any longer be in doubt. The ‘democratic’ game of party politics is by its very nature incapable of generating solutions for the multiple crises besetting the UK and Europe in 2024.
Those for whom patriotism means more than a photo opportunity should need no further incentive to get ourselves organised and present UK voters with a genuine alternative.
Labour’s Asian base crumbles
Labour’s entire team of councillors in the Lancashire borough of Pendle has quit, exposing the extent to which Keir Starmer’s party has become dependent on Asian communities in some areas of Britain.
The resignations were timed just days before close of nominations in the English local council elections, which will make it difficult for Labour to find new candidates and prepare campaigns.
All ten incumbent Labour councillors in Pendle (nine of them Asians) resigned, in protest at the party leadership’s stance on Israel’s war in Gaza and its handling of ‘anti-semitism’ allegations. Ten parish councillors from the Pendle area also resigned – some of them were due to be borough council candidates next month.
Not coincidentally, one of the main victims of this purge of ‘anti-semites’ was Azhar Ali – Labour’s candidate at the Rochdale parliamentary by-election – who was thrown out of the party after secret recordings emerged of Ali expressing conspiracy theories about Israel.
Ali was for years the main Labour power-broker in Pendle. He was leader of the Labour group on Lancashire County Council until the ‘anti-semitism’ scandal destroyed him, after which he was replaced by the veteran Jewish councillor Jennifer Mein (against whom H&D editor Mark Cotterill stood at the last county council elections).
These resignations reveal two contradictory facts about Keir Starmer’s Labour Party.
The first is that in several areas of Britain, Labour has effectively been taken over by Asians – very similar to the way in which some inner-city Labour parties were taken over by Trotskyists and other far-left sects during the 1970s. This isn’t just because of the influx of immigrants. It’s because in parallel with their arrival, traditional industries collapsed – which meant that trade unions that had been Labour’s backbone also collapsed.
But the second fact is that however powerful Asians might be in some local areas, they count for nothing at the top of the Labour Party.
Keir Starmer is absolutely determined to position his party as a close ally of Israel. The only reason he might now venture some limited criticisms of Netanyahu is that Israeli brutality has become so extreme that they are increasingly criticised by well-informed Conservatives and veteran establishment figures, such as the retired diplomat Lord Ricketts.
Starmer will very timidly echo some of these criticisms.
H&D readers should be under no illusions. Keir Starmer will at some point within the next nine months become Prime Minister and Labour will win a landslide parliamentary majority.
But the fault lines within his party – not only over Gaza but over socially liberal attitudes, feminism, and ‘trans’ rights – will continue to raise difficult questions about Labour’s identity.
Labour’s impending victory will simply expose its ideological vacuity.
It will be up to racial nationalists to frame a coherent response.
H&D will as always carry full reports on the local council elections, both here and in the print edition of our magazine.
Galloway victory exposes the fake left’s crisis over ‘multiracialism’
A few minutes ago the former Labour MP George Galloway won the Rochdale by-election, in a stunning exposé of Muslim voters‘ disillusionment with Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer. Galloway polled 39.7% of the vote, and won a majority of 5,697, ahead of local independent David Tully, who surprised the media by taking 21.3%.
Though I reject many of Galloway’s views (especially his Putinism and his support for the terrorist IRA’s political front Sinn Fein), I welcome his election to Westminster where he will be an eloquent (if unprincipled) voice in support of Palestine, against the lavishly financed Zionist lobby that dominates all the major UK parties.
Labour thought they had chosen a perfect careerist candidate: Azhar Ali, an Asian councillor in nearby Nelson who led the Labour group on Lancashire County Council. Ali had made all the right noises to obtain promotion in Labour’s ranks – regarded as a reliable ‘moderate’ and endorsed by leading Jewish activists in Starmer’s party.
But as should have been obvious, careerism involves saying different things to different audiences. At the start of the campaign, a secretly recorded tape was leaked of Ali speaking to Asian community leaders in Accrington (less than 20 miles from Rochdale). As anyone outside Starmer’s circle of deluded wokeists might have predicted, Ali’s words to this audience were very different from when he was speaking to liberals and Jews!
The leak quickly led to Labour disowning Ali, and because he has always depended on careerist grovelling rather than principle, he completely failed to maintain any sort of campaign on his own. Ali remained on the ballot paper as Labour candidate, because the relevant deadlines had passed, and his feeble 7.7% vote came from that section of the electorate who would vote for a donkey if it had a Labour label.
The Rochdale campaign was absolutely made for George Galloway. Though he will be 70 later this year, Galloway has lost none of his ability to play populist political cards. In this case most of his pitch was to Rochdale’s Asians (who amount to around 30% of the constituency, according to the 2021 census). The Gaza issue has highlighted a broader perception among such people that they have been let down by their ‘community leaders’ in a series of cynical deals with the Labour Party. A reckoning was overdue, irrespective of the Azhar Ali fiasco.
Galloway also made a pitch to disillusioned White voters, but a large number of these opted for local independent David Tully, whose energetic campaign received little attention from mainstream journalists until ballot boxes were opened.
Mr Tully is not a racial nationalist, but his commendable campaign and focus on local concerns (including the threatened bankruptcy of Rochdale Football Club, where he is a season ticket holder) will have won him a lot of support from our type of voters.
And that brings us to the elephant in the room: the total absence of any credible nationalist party from this campaign.
Reform UK, just two weeks after an excellent result in Wellingborough, suffered a well-deserved embarrassment in Rochdale after their inexplicable selection of Simon Danczuk as their candidate. Mr Danczuk is another shallow careerist who was Labour MP for Rochdale until he was disgraced after sending inappropriate sexual messages to a teenager.
Danzuk and his party leader Richard Tice tried to distract from their poor result (only 6.3% and sixth place) by whining about “racism”, “intimidation” and “anti-semitism”. Their desperation in playing the victim card merely reflected the utter bankruptcy of “civic nationalism”. Galloway himself has now revealed that a short while ago Tice asked him to be a Reform UK candidate: that’s how shallow and unprincipled Reform UK’s leader is.
In the 1990s I repeatedly experienced political violence in Rochdale, including being pelted with half-bricks by “anti-fascists” outside Rochdale Town Hall after an election count. But anyone who is serious about nationalist politics doesn’t whine about such things, they just get on with the task, however long and arduous.
Britain First raised funds from their supporters with the promise that they would fight this by-election, even after the close of nominations showed that they did not in fact have a candidate. The sad truth is that Britain First is just another con aimed at gullible nationalist donors – just like the BNP became in later years, and just like the various enterprises run by Nick Griffin.
Billy Howarth, a local campaigner against the scandal of Rochdale Pakistanis “grooming” teenage girls, stood as an independent candidate but failed to make any impact, polling only 1.7%. It needs to be recognised that there are some people like Mr Howarth who are honest and have sound instincts on some issues, but who come nowhere near the calibre required of a parliamentary election candidate or spokesman for the broader nationalist cause.
Considering the unusual circumstances, the 39.7% turnout was high – and was likely to have been especially high in Asian areas.
But many White voters will have abstained in despair. Rochdale again shows the political vacuum in the UK, especially in northern towns that have experienced the worst effects of multiracialism.
A credible challenge is long overdue – whether it comes from the British Democrats, the newly registered Homeland Party, organisations not yet registered such as Patriotic Alternative, or some united front of racial nationalists.
H&D will continue to report on a non-partisan basis, and we shall give support to any and every genuine nationalist campaign.
Is Keir Starmer prepared to write off Muslim voters?
Labour Party officials seem bewildered by the extent of “anti-semitism” in their party, following revelations last Sunday that eventually forced Sir Keir Starmer to abandon his candidate at the Rochdale parliamentary by-election.
In normal circumstances, political observers would be relentlessly examining the collapse of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party, especially after their catastrophic results in yesterday’s by-elections at Wellingborough and Kingswood.
And if Starmer were being opposed only by hard-left supporters of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, he wouldn’t be too concerned.
Yet the reality is slowly coming home to Labour leaders that even “moderate” Muslims are disgusted by Starmer’s fanatical Zionism – and that a large part of mainstream opinion among indigenous Britons is also hostile to Israel’s never-ending brutality.
Azhar Ali was regarded as one of the most “moderate” Muslims in the Labour Party, until secret recordings were published last Sunday, in which Ali expressed implicitly “anti-semitic” conspiracy theories.
Then another Lancashire Labour candidate – former Hyndburn MP Graham Jones – was suspended for similar anti-Israeli remarks secretly recorded at the same event.
Numerous Labour councillors, including Labour’s council leader in Burnley, had already quit the party in protest at Starmer’s craven pro-Israel policy, and this week two more quit, in the West Yorkshire borough of Kirklees, where there had already been earlier resignations and suspensions.
Several of these anti-Zionists (whether resigning on principle or suspended after being caught out expressing their private views) are indigenous Britons, though many are Muslims.
The really crucial point is that a certain block of voters (likely to be mainly Muslim) views the Gaza issue as such an important one that they could change their vote and desert Labour, even if this runs the risk of allowing Conservative candidates to win.
Very few Muslims support the Conservative Party, though this week’s strangest political story was the expulsion of the Conservative Mayor of Salisbury.
Cllr Atiqul Hoque was expelled with immediate effect, after allegations of posting “offensive” messages on WhatsApp and social media. Salisbury is an ancient cathedral city with a very White population: not the sort of place where one expects to find an Asian mayor, still less a Conservative one, still less one who posts “offensive” material online.
It all goes to show what a strange country the UK has become!
Mainstream politicians have combined slavish support for the Zionist state, with obedience to a multiracial and multicultural transformation of our country. The potentially incendiary consequences should have been obvious.
The main question now is whether Muslim “community leaders” allow careerism and vested interests to outweigh principle. It would not be surprising to see them mostly fall back into line with Starmer, just as they did with earlier pro-Zionist Tory leaders such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
But right now, there’s still the potential for Labour to haemorrhage Muslim votes. I suspect most H&D readers would quite enjoy that spectacle!
Although as with the parallel collapse of the Conservative Party, what we really need is a coherent, united and focused racial nationalist challenge to the establishment parties.
Labour’s Muslim problem revealed as Rochdale candidate dropped
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party (which seems almost certain to return to government at a general election some time within the next twelve months) is yet again caught in a ‘scandal’ over ‘anti-semitism’. The party’s candidate at the forthcoming parliamentary by-election in Rochdale, Azhar Ali, has been disowned by the party after recordings were leaked of Ali expressing conspiracy theories about last year’s Hamas attack on Israel.
Azhar Ali – a 55-year-old businessman of Pakistani origin – has been leader of the Labour group on Lancashire County Council since 2021. Having failed several times to obtain selection as a parliamentary candidate, he was chosen to contest this by-election after the death of long-serving MP Sir Tony Lloyd.
Nominations have already closed, which means that Labour cannot replace Ali and cannot prevent him appearing on ballot papers as the Labour candidate. If Ali wins then he is expected to sit in the House of Commons as an independent.
Labour hoped that by opting for a very swift contest after Lloyd’s death – the by-election will be held on 29th February – they would stop any rival party building momentum. They were especially concerned that either a “right-wing” party would gain traction among White working-class voters, or the populist left-winger George Galloway would exploit anti-Zionist views among Rochdale’s large Muslim population.
2021 census figures show that Rochdale’s population is 29.6% Asian (predominantly Pakistani – 22% – and Bangladeshi – 4.2%).
Asians are far more likely than White working class voters to turn out at elections, and have traditionally been solidly Labour, but this loyalty has been tested by Starmer’s transformation of the party since he replaced Jeremy Corbyn in 2020.
Starmer (whose wife is Jewish) seems to be obsessed with wiping out any trace of his predecessor’s anti-Zionist views. Even after Israel’s exceptionally brutal response to the Hamas incursion, Starmer has resisted suggestions by many Labour colleagues that he should join calls for a ceasefire in Gaza.
His stance led to the resignation of many Labour councillors across the country, with Lancashire being especially badly hit. Several of Azhar Ali’s colleagues quit, including the leader of Burnley borough council and two county councillors who represent areas of Burnley and had been part of Ali’s Lancashire team.
It was in this context that Azhar Ali spoke at what he thought was a private meeting of Lancashire Labour activists last October. What he didn’t know was that someone (presumably a factional opponent within the party) was recording his comments. The tape was passed to the Mail on Sunday and reported yesterday.
Though Ali didn’t express explicitly anti-semitic views, he endorsed one of the many conspiracy theories that are widely believed within the UK’s Asian community. He told the meeting:
“The Egyptians are saying that they warned Israel ten days earlier… Americans warned them a day before [that] there’s something happening… They deliberately took the security off, they allowed… that massacre that gives them the green light to do whatever they bloody want.”
For 36 hours after the story broke, Labour tried to defend Ali, but leading figures in the Jewish community demanded he must be dropped, and Labour has now complied.
It’s too early to say whether Ali will be capable of fighting an independent campaign. If not, it seems likely that the beneficiary will be George Galloway who, although he opposes almost everything H&D readers stand for, is undoubtedly an able campaigner.
The tragedy is that no racial nationalist party is presently capable of fighting a serious parliamentary election campaign. Indigenous Britons in Rochdale have been thoroughly betrayed by all mainstream political parties and by the consequences of the multiracial society. They were never consulted about the demographic transformation of our country, which is more visible in Rochdale than in almost any other town in Britain.
Rochdale was the scene of one of the most infamous cases of the “grooming” of White teenage girls by men of mainly Pakistani origin. In 2016 eight such men (together with a White heroin addict who committed similar bestial crimes as part of a “grooming” ring) were sentenced to a total of 125 years in prison for offences that took place between 2004 and 2008.
(A few days before the Ali scandal, the Green Party’s candidate in the Rochdale by-election, Guy Otten, was also forced to withdraw from the campaign due to anti-Islamic posts on Twitter several years ago. Though Otten would have polled a negligible vote in any case, his case is another example of the perils of politics in the internet age, especially in the treacherous political waters of a constituency which is one-third non-White. It seems that candidates can be disqualified nowadays for being either anti-Israel or anti-Muslim, when what we would ideally like to see are candidates who are pro-British!)
What can H&D readers learn from the events of the past two days that have rocked British politics, both in Rochdale and nationwide?
(1) Ali’s swift defenestration shows which racial/religious minority has real influence in UK politics, and it’s not UK Muslims. Although there are hardly any Jews in Rochdale, the Labour Party decided to obey the demands of the Jewish community, while continuing to ignore the views of UK Muslims.
(2) Although this is the situation at national level (and certainly where foreign policy is concerned), Labour at local level in many parts of the UK is disproportionately influenced by Asians, who are now likely to split, with one group (often local businessman) pragmatically unconcerned by the fate of their co-religionists in Gaza, while others will break away and support independent candidates.
(3) Gaza is just the latest (though the most serious) of the issues that split Muslim voters. Where Labour is concerned there are also longstanding factional divisions between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (especially serious in Oldham); bitter personal rivalries; and splits between traditional “community leaders” and younger activists on social issues such as feminism and gay/lesbian/trans questions. Many of those who are most radical on Gaza are also opposed to their own community leaders on issues involving the role of women. For example, one of the Lancashire county councillors who quit Labour over Gaza is a Westernised Pakistani woman.
(4) While some H&D readers will strongly agree with criticisms of Labour policy on Gaza, the sad thing is that the Palestinian cause has been tainted by childish conspiracy theories. Events have shown that Jews do indeed have disproportionate power in UK politics, including within the Labour Party. But it is frankly ludicrous to argue that Israel allowed the Hamas attack to happen, or that Hamas is in some sense part of a Zionist conspiracy. On a wide range of issues, real conspiracies are allowed to happen because political dissidents (both within the Muslim community and among White racial nationalists) are too paranoid and quick to jump on online bandwagons without thinking seriously about the issues involved.
(5) One consequence of this is that the anti-Zionist cause is represented by charlatans such as George Galloway. If he wins the by-election on 29th February and becomes MP for Rochdale, the loudest pro-Palestinian voice in Parliament will also be an ultra-leftist and an ally of Vladimir Putin, further discrediting the Palestinian cause in the eyes of most White Britons.
(6) Yet again, the cause of truth and justice – whether for the Palestinians or (more relevantly) for the victims of Rochdale grooming gangs and other crimes in our dysfunctional multiracial society – is ill-served by the choices available to voters at the ballot box. As racial nationalist activists, we all bear a heavy share of responsibility for the collapse of our movement during the first quarter of the 21st century. Do we have the courage and determination to change course?
Labour’s multicultural crisis!
Though it still seems very likely that Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer will become Prime Minister in about a year’s time, the latest crisis in Palestine has raised problems that are rooted in Labour’s historical commitments to both Zionism and the UK’s multiracial society.
For most of its history, the Labour Party has been pro-Zionist – with the partial exceptions of the Attlee government that presided over a war against Jewish terrorists from 1945-48, and Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the party during 2015-20.
Successive Labour leaders (ever since Attlee’s government saw the first large-scale West Indian immigration) have become ever more committed to the vision of multiracialism and multiculturalism.
Until the 1980s it never occurred to any politician that Islam and in particular solidarity with fellow Muslims in Palestine would become a factor in British politics. Even racial nationalists during the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s emphasised other reasons why non-European races and cultures didn’t belong here. Religion was rarely taken seriously as a political division (apart from Protestant v Catholic divisions in Ulster and some British cities).
But now significant numbers of Muslim councillors and MPs (as well as some pro-Palestinian, non-Muslim Labourites, usually either from the Corbynite left-wing or worried about Muslim voters in their areas) are rebelling against their leader’s support for Israel.
Starmer seems determined to distance himself from Corbyn and take Labour back to the Tony Blair era (or even the era of Harold Wilson, who from 1963-76 was the most pro-Zionist Labour leader in the party’s history).
Yet the brutality of Israel’s assault on Gaza has shocked some Muslim councillors so much that they have quit the party.
Much of the trouble has come in areas of Lancashire that are well-known to the H&D team from the 2000s when racial nationalism flourished in some racial flashpoint areas.
The leader of Burnley council has quit Labour together with ten colleagues, instantly removing Labour’s control of the council. For now they are in an independent group, and the council’s future direction is uncertain.
Councillors have also quit Labour In nearby Pendle, while in Blackburn (where H&D editor Mark Cotterill was once a councillor) there have been defections from both the Tories and Labour.
Yesterday three members of Haringey council in North London (this time non-Muslim Corbynists) joined the exodus.
For now it seems obvious that Starmer will stick with his pro-Zionist policy whatever happens. But if Israeli policy becomes even more brutal, he will start to come under pressure from more mainstream voices in his party, and the split will widen.
The tragedy in all this of course is that while Muslim councillors are prepared to speak for their brothers and sisters in Gaza, there is no racial nationalist party of any size able to speak for indigenous Britons.
Jeremy Corbyn – the terrorists’ friend – attacks H&D and Isabel Peralta
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has launched an extraordinary attack on Heritage and Destiny, calling for our meetings to be banned. In a letter to Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Corbyn has targeted our European correspondent Isabel Peralta, demanding that she should be refused entry to the United Kingdom.
Isabel has never been convicted of any crime, but has twice been detained and questioned by UK Border Force, abusing their powers under the Terrorism Act.
Anyone interested in real terrorism should be looking not at Heritage & Destiny and Isabel Peralta, but at the close allies of Jeremy Corbyn, who has for decades been known as terrorism’s best friend in Parliament.
From 1985 to 1989 Corbyn was national secretary and later president of the notoriously violent group Anti-Fascist Action. AFA’s terrorist core – Red Action – held its meetings in Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, north London, and provided security for Corbyn and for one of his closest political allies, IRA godfather Gerry Adams.
Even Corbyn’s own party has often been embarrassed by his especially close ties to the IRA. In 1984 Corbyn was reprimanded by Labour’s chief whip for taking IRA terrorists on a tour of Parliament. In 1987 Corbyn tried to appoint a notorious Irish republican sympathiser and anarchist, Ronan Bennett, as his parliamentary research assistant, but the authorities refused on security grounds to give Bennett a House of Commons pass.
Two of Corbyn’s comrades in Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action – Patrick Hayes (AFA London organiser) and Jan Taylor – were given long jail sentences for bombing the Harrods store in London on behalf of the IRA. Their fellow AFA activist, Liam Heffernan, was jailed for stealing explosives on behalf of another republican terrorist gang, the INLA.
A senior police officer later told the Sunday Times that Corbyn “knew they were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them”.
There has never been any suggestion that Corbyn was personally involved in specific acts of terrorism, but for decades police and security services monitored his close connections with terrorists and their active supporters. They were especially concerned that terrorists invited into Westminster premises by Corbyn had been able to familiarise themselves with the layout and security of the Houses of Parliament.
In 1985, Corbyn was the keynote speaker at Red Action’s national meeting. He maintained close ties for years to Red Action, a group whose journal openly stated: “both as an organisation and as individuals we support the activities of the Provisional IRA and the INLA unconditionally and uncritically.”
Some of the paymasters of “anti-fascism” will be embarrassed by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is now championing their cause. In addition to his support for the IRA, Corbyn has frequently been accused of “anti-semitism”, for example over his praise for a mural that promoted allegedly “anti-semitic tropes”.
H&D has been contacted by several Londoners appalled by Corbyn’s consistent association with terrorists and their propagandists. We have been offered premises in Corbyn’s Islington constituency to hold our next meeting, and we are discussing several options for this event.
Unlike Jeremy Corbyn’s murderous friends and allies, Isabel Peralta – the young Spanish activist whom Corbyn has so disgracefully targeted – has never committed any offence against UK law. In reply to Corbyn’s attack, Isabel writes:
“I honestly find it hard to believe that my mere presence in a country is so dangerous that even one of the main English politicians, former leader of the second-largest political force in England, writes to the Home Secretary asking for me to be banned. I find it difficult to believe that someone who has not committed any crime and has never been convicted is ostracised or exiled from several European countries. But it is like this. Our fanaticism moves mountains and our enemies have more faith in our triumph than we do ourselves.
“One does not fear a madman, one does not take seriously a merely anachronistic or atavistic enemy. There is fear of a revolution. We are a revolution, a living, organic idea, destined to be proudly implemented throughout Europe.”
Let there be no doubt: H&D will continue to expose the truth about Jeremy Corbyn and his crazed Marxist and Irish Republican friends. We shall continue to fight for the true Europe. And we shall contest (at whatever level proves necessary) any attempt to intimidate or exclude our comrade and European correspondent Isabel Peralta.
Iraq Invasion – Twenty Years On
The twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq sees the discredited but still shameless Tony Blair continuing to regard himself as an international statesman.
But for British patriots and campaigners for historical truth worldwide, Blair’s criminal record is clear.
A positive aspect of the entire disgusting charade – whereby ‘evidence’ of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ was massaged to create a case for war – is that it added to public disenchantment with the political elite. Arguably the rise of UKIP, Brexit, and even the election of Donald Trump (for better and worse) could never have happened without this mass disillusionment caused by the WMD lie.
The fact that we failed to capitalise on that is partly because, here in the UK, the BNP leadership under Nick Griffin was fatally weak and confused in its response to Blair’s lies. Griffin was never able to decide whether he wanted to exploit the war (and 9/11) merely to attack Islam, or whether he was prepared to ask more serious questions.
Some of those important questions are asked in the video below by the barrister and anti-war campaigner Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani, speaking late last year at a meeting of the Four Virtues Club, hosted by Lady Michèle Renouf and Dr James Thring.
Forthright condemnation of the way intelligence was used to justify the war is no longer restricted to political dissidents. For example, to mark the anniversary the CBS News podcast Intelligence Matters has produced a special edition on the Iraq War which pointed out the way that conclusions were distorted to fit a political agenda:
“Instead of asking, ‘Is it possible that we’re not seeing more because we are wrong?’ the analysts explained the lack of information by saying Saddam was practicing ‘vigorous denial and deception efforts.'”
Michael Morell, former acting Director of the CIA, states on the podcast:
“We were wrong on the chemical weapons judgment, we were wrong on the biological weapons judgment, and we were wrong on the nuclear weapons judgment. Saddam no longer had these programs. He had stopped them. He had disarmed.”
Yet Tony Blair and his apologists are still unable to face these facts.
