Europe shamed by Jared Taylor’s deportation

Jared Taylor (third from left) with H&D editor Mark Cotterill, assistant editor Peter Rushton, and former MEP Andrew Brons.

An apocryphal British newspaper headline supposedly once read: “Fog in Channel – Continent cut off”.

This was of course a joke at the expense of insular Britons, in fact according to the historian Niall Ferguson it was first promoted by German National-Socialist propagandists.

However as of 2019 the joke is now on Europe’s institutions. On Friday American Renaissance editor and author Jared Taylor was detained at Zurich airport and deported back to the USA. He appears to have been banned from the entire “Schengen area”, which means most of Europe, with the exception of the UK, Ireland and some Balkan countries.

In the name of “security”, Europe’s guardians have decided to cut off their citizens from one of the world’s most important writers and thinkers on racial questions. Since the race problem is by far the greatest threat to Europe, the guardians of our security have thus become part of the problem.

Mr Taylor – a Yale graduate and author of the classic text on America’s racial crisis Paved With Good Intentions – was changing planes in Switzerland en route to Stockholm for the Scandza Forum, the latest in a series of conferences that have brought together some of the most important European thinkers and activists on racial questions.

He had also intended to attend a further conference in Turku, Finland.

Jared Taylor speaking at a meeting of the National Capital Region of the CofCC in Washington DC. Seated to his right is the late Dr. Sam Francis.

In an update posted to his website, Mr Taylor explains:

The officer at passport control in Zurich airport had already stamped my passport and waved me through to my Stockholm flight when she called after me to come back. She stared at her computer screen and told me I had to wait. She didn’t say why. In a few minutes, a policeman arrived and told me there was an order from Poland that barred me from all 26 countries in the Schengen Zone.

He said the Poles did not give a reason for the ban, and he asked me what I had done. I said I give talks on immigration, and someone in Poland must not like them. “That makes me a political criminal,” I said.

The officer took me to an interrogation room and asked me about my travel plans. He went off to another room for a while and came back with a form for me to sign, saying that I understood I had been denied entry and was being sent back to the United States. After some more waiting, he fingerprinted me and took my photograph. He then turned me over to a man in civilian clothes, who took me to a spare, dormitory-like accommodation where I will spend the night. It’s not a jail. People pay the equivalent of $40 to spend the night here if they miss a flight. I am free to walk around the terminal, I can make phone calls and use the internet, and I have a meal voucher that is supposed to last me for the next 12 hours. The officer kept my passport, though, and won’t give it back to me until I board the flight home.

Fortunately the internet means that (for the time being at any rate) Europeans can still access Mr Taylor’s work at the American Renaissance website, and the contributions of other speakers at the Scandza Forum.

The multiracial society’s collapse is evident all around us. Those same border security officials who excluded Mr Taylor have utterly failed to protect our continent from the real and continuing threat.

Immigration surges after Brexit referendum

Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.

The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

Yet again illegal immigration is in the headlines, and yet again the British government seems unable to protect our borders.

Yet this time no-one can blame the European Union, indeed the blame lies in Whitehall (and to some extent indirectly in Washington).

The latest waves of immigrants heading across the English Channel are disproportionately Iranian. Why?

There is no human rights crisis in Iran and no war displacing ‘refugees’. The push and pull factors here are twofold.

Firstly there is an economic impulse. As part of his pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi foreign policy (so far undisturbed by the Saudi authorities’ brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October), President Donald Trump has scrapped the nuclear deal previously welcomed by most western governments (including the UK) and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

In characteristic fashion the U.S. government has bullied its allies (including the UK) into collaborating with these sanctions. Inevitably this has had economic effects, so some Iranians have decided to become ‘refugees’ (i.e. economic migrants).

These migrants know also that for political reasons the British government automatically grants refugee status to Iranians the moment they arrive on our soil: there is no requirement to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. Iranians are never returned home by our immigration authorities, whatever the circumstances.

Thus the craziness multiplies: a poorly thought-out Trump policy is compounded by a propagandistic ‘human rights’ policy. The losers are long-suffering British taxpayers, as the present crisis effectively signals a green light not only to Iranians but to a wide range of potential economic migrants and ‘people smugglers’ who will be encouraged to take their chances across the English Channel.

U.S. Mid-Term Election Results Mixed, But Demographics Doom Republicans

(by James Knight for H&D)

The mid-term elections took place on November 6 in the United States. They were seen – correctly – as a referendum on President Donald Trump. In general, the results point to some trouble ahead for Trump. Despite a very strong economy, complete with low unemployment, Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. They are now down by about 37 seats to the Democrats. On the other hand, the party increased its control of the Senate by one and now hold a two-seat lead in that chamber of Congress.

 

Most parties in power get defeated – often quite badly – in the mid-term elections. Trump’s losses are somewhat less that those suffered by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama in 1994, 2006 and 2010 respectively. Democrats had a significant advantage in fund raising as almost all of Hollywood and the ultra-rich US elite support “The Resistance” against Trump. And nearly every single close election recount had Democrats winning over Republicans, which was almost certainly due to election stealing/tampering (more common in the US than many suppose).

The demographics of the election show the usual breakdowns. Non-whites voted for Democrats with the following percentages:

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

Actually, Trump did slightly better among non-whites in 2016 than previous Republicans such as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Among whites, Republicans only won by a margin of 54% to 44%. White men broke 60% to 39% for Republicans while white women were split 49% to 49%. The fact that so many whites decided to vote for Democrats is a big warning sign for Republicans. For years, the Republican party has been drifting toward becoming the party of white people. With roughly 80% of non-whites voting Democrats, and with the electorate getting less and less white with every election, the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Unless Trump can get the white vote up to 60% Republican in 2020, he will likely lose reelection.

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

Working class whites in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave the election to Trump in 2016. This was due to his stance on issues such as immigration and trade and his populist rhetoric on economic issues. This base has been slowly drifting away from Trump in the last two years.

Likewise, the Dissident Right, which also came out for Trump in 2016, has been disappointed with his performance in the last two year. Ann Coulter routinely calls out Trump on Twitter for his tough talk but inaction on a border wall, birthright citizenship and stopping caravans of illegal immigrants. Gregory Hood of American Renaissance is even more blunt:

“President Trump has governed like a moderate, while speaking like a hardliner—the worst possible combination. He has done so unnecessarily. One struggles to recapture the sense of the 2016 campaign. In retrospect, it seems like something out of Homeric times, with almost supernatural forces intervening in the affairs of men. Everything had to break Donald Trump’s way; Hillary Clinton had to make every possible mistake. Somehow, everything happened exactly the way it had to, leading to one of the most remarkable upsets in American political history.

During both the primary and general election, candidate Trump seemed to run as much against the Republican as the Democratic party. Some of his promises had cross-party appeal—notably his calls for a massive infrastructure program and his pledge to protect certain entitlements. His health care proposals were admittedly vague, as he simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something great.” However, because President Trump had directly attacked the policy preferences of Republicans such as Speaker Paul Ryan and free-market institutions such as the Club for Growth, it seemed reasonable to believe he could lead the GOP away from the unpopular, wonkish economic policies that had little appeal outside the Beltway Right. The victory of President Trump was a victory for right-wing critics of Conservatism Inc., as he showed that its support for a liberal immigration policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and slashing entitlements had no real support among the conservative grassroots, let alone the larger public.

Yet since taking office, with rare exceptions, President Trump has governed like just another Republican. The president’s first major legislative initiative was a disastrous attempt to replace Obamacare. It is not surprising that President Trump did not have a specific “great” plan regarding healthcare, yet the conservative establishment’s failure to provide a workable alternative to Obamacare is testament to its uselessness.”

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

Since the election, the press has been making much of how demographics are turning formerly red states (Republicans) into blue states (Democrats). This is entirely due to mass immigration. The US takes in over 1 million legal immigrants every year. About 90% of these people are non-white.

My own Congressional district in northern Virginia (VA-10) is indicative of this. It went for the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf won the seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and didn’t relinquish it until he retired in 2014. That year, moderate Republican Barbara Comstock (who favors high immigration) won the seat by 16 points (56% to 40%) over her Democratic challenger. In 2016, her margin of victory was only 5.5 points. This year she lost by a margin of 56% to 44% to liberal Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

While there are many reasons for her loss, the main one is this. In 2008, VA-10 was 80% white. It is now 65% white.

Virginia used to be a rural, Southern and conservative state. It is now less than 56% white. Republicans have not won a state-wide election since 2009. This same trend is about to turn once solidly red states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and even Texas blue. Orange County, California (outside Los Angeles) used to be perhaps the most reliably conservative district in the nation. It was the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet it now has all Democrat representatives in Congress.

In terms of the 2020 elections, President Trump still has time to right the ship. Building his promised border wall with Mexico would be a great first step. He has also mentioned ending birthright citizenship (where children born in the US – even to illegals – are automatically given US citizenship) and affirmative action. If his actions can match his talking and threats, Trump can win reelection. But after 2020, demographics may permanently sweep the GOP away at the national level.

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

Political establishment humiliated in Bavarian election

Horst Seehofer (right) with Chancellor Angela Merkel: the ruling CSU was rejected by Bavarian voters yesterday after Seehofer’s inconsistent stance on immigration

The latest in a series of historic defeats for Europe’s political establishment saw German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s partners in the Christian Social Union (CSU) fall to a humilating defeat in the Bavarian regional elections.

Ever since the creation of Bismarck’s Germany in 1871 Bavaria has had a unique position as a Catholic region in a majority-Protestant state and has almost always been ruled by Catholic-conservative parties. In postwar arrangements that grew out of Anglo-American military occupation, the Christian Democrats (CDU) are the main conservative party in fifteen of Germany’s sixteen regions or länder, while the CSU operates as the CDU’s Catholic partner in Bavaria.

CSU leader Horst Seehofer is Interior Minister in Merkel’s cabinet, and for more than a year he has been trying to distance himself from her disastrous immigration policies. However Bavaria’s voters saw through Seehofer’s inconsistency: if he really disagreed so much with Merkel’s determination to admit hordes of migrants, he should have split the CDU-CSU alliance and brought down the government. Seehofer cannot continue to serve in such a senior government role, then when it suits him avoid responsibility for government policy.

Seehofer’s CSU polled its worst result since 1950, down from 47.6% to 37.2%, finishing eighteen seats short of a majority.

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD – Alternative for Germany) – the anti-immigration party that was created just after the previous Bavarian elections in 2013 – achieved 10.2% and will have 22 seats in the new Bavarian parliament (Landtag). AfD now has members in every regional parliament except Hesse (the region that includes Frankfurt), where the newly-created party narrowly missed out at the September 2013 Landtag election, polling 4.1%, below the 5% threshold required to obtain seats. AfD is confident of winning seats at the next election in Hesse, which is on October 28th. Opinion polls suggest AfD’s Hesse vote will be between 10% and 14%.

 

Since there is no chance of the CSU agreeing to coalition talks with AfD, the ruling party will now seek a deal with the so-called ‘Free Voters’ (FW), a loosely-knit grouping of regionalist parties that will have a shopping list of demands representing particular local interests. FW’s platform is anti-immigration, but not so strongly as AfD, and their support can probably by bought by CSU concessions on specific issues (e.g. opposition to a third runway at Munich’s international airport).

The big question know is whether this latest electoral humiliation will signal the end for Angela Merkel. Armin Gastl, CSU leader in the central Munich constituency, said: “Voters are abandoning us chiefly because of Merkel. I hope she will step down—she is a woman of the past, not a woman of the future. This is the twilight of the chancellor.”

 

Former Trump adviser on European tour – plans to set up new European populist ‘Movement’

Leading figures in ‘The Movement’, an alliance of European populists – (left to right) former Trump adviser Steve Bannon; Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini; and Brussels-based Jewish lawyer Mischael Modrikamen

Steve Bannon, the controversial former adviser to President Trump and former executive chairman of Breitbart News, is touring European capitals this week and meeting a range of political leaders.

Bannon plans to develop a pan-European alliance of populist forces under the label ‘The Movement’. This was officially registered in January by a Belgian lawyer called Mischael Modrikamen, who is a well-known figure in the Jewish community in Brussels and leader of a tiny party called the People’s Party.

Modrikamen is a friend and ally of Nigel Farage, through whom he was introduced to Bannon.

The most important figures already signed up to ‘The Movement’ are Italian deputy prime minister and interior minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-immigration Lega, and his ally Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’), the most significant of several groups that grew out of the former fascist party MSI.

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni last weekend at the conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

Bannon spoke at the Fratelli d’Italia conference in Rome last weekend. He told an enthusiastic crowd: “Trump and Brexit and [the Italian general election in] March 2018 are all inextricably linked: it’s a rejection of the way things are and it’s a way forward … it’s the little guy saying ‘we have a better idea’ … and the first thing is a rejection of what the elites have foisted on Western civilization.”

After Rome, Bannon went on to Prague where he met Czech President Milos Zeman, who comes from a very different political tradition to Bannon’s Italian hosts. While Salvini’s roots are in regional separatism and Meloni’s are in the postwar development of Italy’s fascist tradition, President Zeman is one of the last of the old Eastern European politicians rooted in a version of socialism. A Communist party member until 1970, Zeman created the Social Democratic Party and was a centre-left Prime Minister for several years, but more recently has moved towards a radically anti-immigration populism, winning re-election as President earlier this year.

Like Bannon’s other allies, Zeman is closer to Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin than to the liberal elites who control the European Union.

 

 

Labour promise post-Brexit immigration nightmare

Diane Abbott – seen here (right) with Jeremy Corbyn – today announced Labour’s post-Brexit immigration policy

Some H&D readers were always sceptical about Brexit, fearing that immigration policy would actually get worse after we left the European Union. UKIP spokesmen regularly argued that they would prefer immigrants from India (and by implication English-speaking countries in Africa) to those from Eastern Europe.

UKIP of course is now semi-extinct, so that party’s views on race and immigration are irrelevant, but there is a real possibility that post-Brexit Britain will have a Labour government. Today we found out what that might mean.

Diane Abbott – who has been such a disaster as Shadow Home Secretary that she was hidden away for most of the 2017 election campaign – today announced Labour’s immigration policy, and many H&D readers might now be thinking we would be better off in the EU than risking this open door disaster.

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn were seen in the 1980s as the ‘loony left’, highlighted in this Tory election poster, but Tory failure now leaves these extremists on the brink of power.

Ms Abbott said that a Labour government would end any preferential system for Europeans:

“Sadly at the current time we have a class system for migrants.

“Commonwealth migrants and other non-EU migrants are treated in a way that is tantamount to making them second-class migrants.

“They struggle to bring partners or spouses here. They have to meet minimum income targets. They can lose their right to residency simply by travelling home for family reasons.

“It’s not fair, it’s not humane, it’s not reasonable.

“Labour will end the established system of first and second-class migrants. And we will do so, not by treating EU migrants as appallingly as Commonwealth and other non-EU migrants have been treated for a long time. We will end the first and second-class system by treating everyone fairly.”

We fear that Ms Abbott was not thinking of South African, Australian or other White Commonwealth migrants. We all know the type of people who will be queuing up to take advantage of a Corbyn-Abbott run Britain.

One-third of asylum claims come from illegal immigrants or visa overstayers

longtermmigration

The Home Office has officially admitted that one-third of all claims for political asylum are made by illegal immigrants or those who have stayed in the UK beyond their legal visa limit.

Rather than applying for asylum at the earliest opportunity – as one would expect from a genuine refugee – these people only raise the question of asylum when they have been apprehended by immigration officers, often while working illegally.

During the decade from 2004 to 2014, 231,100 asylum applications were received: of these, 83,912 were from people who had been apprehended by immigration staff, either as illegal entrants or as overstayers.

Surprisingly, almost one-quarter of these were nevertheless granted either asylum or an extended leave to remain.

Even Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, admitted to The Times:

“The very principle of seeking asylum is that you feel persecuted at the time you arrive, not saying you feel persecuted after arriving illegally or for different reasons and then remaining in the country until you are apprehended.”

entryvisas

Official figures for 2015-2016 show that the largest number of UK entry visas granted during 2015-2016 were to visitors from China and India/Pakistan.  There were 92,715 visas granted to Chinese visitors, and 92,327 to India and Pakistan combined.  While there would be many legitimate Chinese tourists, students or business visitors among their total (which was a 22% increase on the previous year), one wonders about the 14,231 visas granted to Nigerians (though this was a 25% decrease on the previous year, partly because of a crackdown on illegals).

By contrast far smaller numbers of visas (whether for tourism, study or work) were granted to travellers from White countries: 21,605 to Australians; 34,276 to visitors from the USA;

In 2014 an undercover BBC investigation revealed widespread abuse of the student visa system.

Election success for German anti-immigration party

Frauke Petry, leader of Alternative for Germany, which achieved tremendous gains in German elections yesterday.

Frauke Petry, leader of Alternative for Germany, which achieved tremendous gains in German elections yesterday.

The anti-immigration party “Alternative for Germany” (Alternative für Deutschland – AfD) has made worldwide headlines this week after yesterday’s elections to three German state parliaments (Landtag) in which AfD finished in second or third place.

AfD was only formed in 2013 and until last summer was mainly focused on reform of the European Union and the single currency: effectively a milder version of our UKIP. In the European Parliament its members were in the same transnational group as David Cameron’s Conservatives and the Polish governing party Law & Justice. They have now been expelled from this group and will probably ally with the Austrian Freedom Party and Marine Le Pen’s French National Front.

AfD was transformed into a more radical anti-immigration force less than a year ago under a new leader – Frauke Petry – and is now seen as the main voice for Germans disgusted by the liberal immigration policy of their Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Mrs Merkel’s Conservative CDU and its traditional opposition the SPD (similar to our Labour Party) were the big losers in yesterday’s elections, and the anti-immigration AfD were the big winners, fighting all three states for the first time.

The most dramatic result was in the former East German state of Saxony-Anhalt, where AfD finished second with 24.2% and will now be the main opposition to an unprincipled coalition of conservatives, socialists and greens who will attempt to govern the region. The nationalist NPD (which is fighting a court case against an attempted ban by German authorities) polled 1.9% (down from 4.6% last time) and a new nationalist party called Die Rechte (The Right) polled 0.2%.

AfD finished third in the traditionally prosperous and conservative western German state of Baden-Württemberg, polling 15.1%. The NPD (for whom this was never a stronghold) slipped from 1.0% to 0.4% and another nationalist party, the Republikaner (who held seats in Baden-Württemberg from 1992 to 2001) similarly fell from 1.1% to 0.3%.

In another western German state – Rhineland Palatinate – the AfD again finished third with 12.6%, while the NPD and Republikaner polled 0.5% (down from 1.1%) and 0.2% (down from 0.8%).

The immigration crisis and the rise of AfD inspired large numbers of Germans to take part in these elections: turnout was 61.1% in Saxony Anhalt and 70.4% in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland Palatinate.

We can now expect AfD (despite the levels of support achieved in these elections) to be intensively targeted by Germany’s heavily politicised security agencies, who will support efforts by establishment politicians to intimidate anti-immigration campaigners.

National Front victory in Dover

Around 200 nationalists attended a very well organised National Front demonstration in Dover against the tide of immigration, which has already created a crisis across Europe and yet again threatens our shores.

NF demonstrators defeated the red rabble in Dover yesterday

NF demonstrators defeated the red rabble in Dover yesterday

Anti-fascist thugs attempted their usual tactics of violent disruption, but this time the forces of red reaction were decisively defeated on the streets of Dover by the NF and allied nationalists from various groups.

Kent Police failed to secure the streets of Dover, so NF activists did the job themselves – very effectively!!!

Congratulations to the National Front and all brave patriots who turned out in Dover yesterday.

Richard Edmonds addresses the NF's anti-immigration demo in Dover yesterday

Richard Edmonds addresses the NF’s anti-immigration demo in Dover yesterday

kent nf banner

 

One of the defeated “anti-fascists” posted this report to an anarchist forum:

We can’t kid around or attempt to save face, or obscure the truth for propaganda purposes, AFN (Anti-Fascist Network) were destroyed in Dover today. Six Comrades went to hospital, and if wasn’t for the police it would have been a lot more. We were outnumbered and outgunned by the Fascists, who were up for a fight from moment one, and had the sufficient mix of booze and steroids to be essentially unstoppable.

I did not think it had to be impressed on people the importance of opposing genuine white nationalists making a demonstration at an immigration detention centre, but as 3 half empty coaches left from London it was clear I was wrong.

Today was a massive victory for the far right, for the ones on the street and the ones off it. Those who were there today felt the rush of victory for the first time in years, and for those on the far right that have been convinced that there is no point to street demonstrations, today will have changed this for many of them.

I am afraid today, that within the context of the ”migrant crisis”, Dover will mark a real resurgence in far right street politics. A street filled with fascists will never be one that is safe for anyone, especially those without white skin.

From this moment on we all must take all fascist demonstrations extremely seriously, and we need everyone that is physically able to attend all future demonstrations. If you are truly in ”Solidarity with Refugees” then you need to be stopping fascists from going to immigrant detention centres, not walking around London. Fascism, never again!”

I got fucking pelted with bricks in a carpark by Nazis as a 100,000 smug liberals marched through London, fucking disgusting.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter