As the pandemic reaches the White House, what are Covid’s implications for our movement?

H&D correspondent Ian Freeman first wrote of a likely pandemic threat fifteen years ago.

On the day that Covid-19 threatens to transform US politics, we now publish a new article by Ian Freeman in which he offers a nationalist perspective on the crisis.

Click here to read this nationalist perspective on the Covid-19 pandemic.

COVID – the nationalist perspective

by H&D correspondent Ian Freeman, writing from Northwich, Cheshire

Prime Minister Boris Johnson was among high-profile Covid patients, now joined by President Trump

Whilst the nationalist Movement should not in my view expend our very limited resources on getting involved in campaigning on short-term issues around the current C0VID-19 pandemic, there are a number of wider points which could be made from a Nationalist perspective. Most importantly, the very existence of the pandemic, and the threat of future ones, vindicates our position and offers us a unique opportunity in the longer term.

The salient points here are:

Firstly, the current arbitrary and draconian Govt measures turned on and off by decree in a chaotic and confused way are unlikely to prove effective in controlling the virus or even sustainable, but that is their problem, not ours.

A short period of limited lockdown to build NHS capacity and a Track and Trace system, together with drastic measures to sequester and shield the most vulnerable, most of whom could have been personally identified at the outset, combined with complete closure of all ports and airports to all passengers, save returning Britons who should have been confined to quarantine camps for 14 days, would have been a reasonable and proportionate measure.

Apart from setting up the Nightingale hospitals, which should reduce the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed, this evidently was not done, so in most respects in Britain the lockdown was wasted. Lockdowns in large populations, as opposed to those in small isolated ones such as New Zealand and the Channel Islands cannot eradicate the virus because they would need to be kept going so long that the economy, and as a result society, would collapse, leading to a sort of “Zombie Apocalypse” catastrophe in which most of the population dies horribly amid hunger, other diseases such as cholera and typhus, and violent general disorder. The three-month lockdown in Britain cost about 20% of the economy. Nobody knows how much more of the economy can be sacrificed before a disastrous civilization collapse, but I would advise against the experiment!

In societies as populous and densely populated as ours, at best lockdowns press the short-term Pause button on the virus’s spread, because they have to be abandoned before they reach pressing Stop lest the economy collapses, followed by society. In fairness, even Professor Neil Ferguson made this point in March in the paper he wrote to scare the Government into a lockdown. All the British Government has done by its futile lockdown is move the inevitable main wave of the pandemic out of summer into the peak National Health Service demand winter period.

The subsequent chronic, confused and erratic sub-lockdown measures dragging on for months we see now are likely not to work in terms of stopping the virus spreading, may cost more in lives directly and indirectly than they save, and impoverish the country for decades. Such impoverishment amongst other things means, far from “protecting” it we shall no longer be able to afford the NHS we had. Whilst the lives of an entire generation of children and young people will be blighted. The endless muddled flow of arbitrary and draconian measures, differing from place to place almost at random, will be increasingly ignored and flouted as the public weary of the whole thing, which, like the Prime Minister himself it seems, they will cease to understand anyway. “Social distancing” and mask wearing conflict with very profound aspects of evolved human social behaviour, and so are unsustainable in the long run anyway.

Extra ‘Nightingale’ hospitals were created to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed by Covid cases, but otherwise our government wasted the spring lockdown and might have postponed an inevitable Covid surge into the winter months.

Hiding political muddle behind a specious mask of “following The Science” shows the sort of total lack of understanding of what Science is, let alone what it says, typical of the Western ruling caste. Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is not – especially in dealing with a new disease on the basis of, initially, little hard data – an Infallible Oracle. Indeed, if, like the British Government, you set up an advisory committee comprised only of those scientists who agree with the policy of the politicians who appointed them, it can serve as a pseudo-scientific echo chamber for said politicians.

The real Science suggests, and many of the numerous eminent scientists in relevant fields sedulously excluded from the Government’s SAGE fig leaf over their own ineptitude believe, that herd immunity, natural or via a vaccine, is the only way out for this, like every other, pandemic. Ironically Boris Johnson was basically right about this at the outset and then panicked or was put under intolerable political pressure. Images of chaos in NHS hospitals would have played to a traditional perceived Tory weakness – clearly not so much lives as votes were at stake!

Secondly the complete suspension of the System’s pretence of “freedom” reveals the utter hypocrisy underlying their regime. Supposedly we fought two World Wars to defend the very freedoms which were simply snatched away at a moment’s notice in the face of what was already known to be a historically trifling pandemic (the Case Fatality Rate of which was known in March to be of the order of 1%, and even the World Health Organisation now say it is only 0.5-1%, comparable with severe influenza pandemics: indeed the 1918 Spanish flu had a Case fatality rate of 2-3%).

The May VE Day celebrations in which a nation of prisoners under arbitrary house arrest “celebrated the defence of freedom” were simply absurd and an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives, as they honestly, however misguidedly, believed, “for our freedom”.

The extreme risk aversion and unwillingness to sustain (likely very mild, by historical standards) casualties of Western regimes today manifest throughout this pandemic will be noted by enemies which, unlike an RNA virus, have minds. Twice in the previous century our nation and others were willing to sacrifice lives to defend freedom (as the public were told and believed). Now we evidently do the opposite.

Our 21st century risk-averse culture makes a mockery of the wartime generation and the recent 75th anniversary of ‘VE Day’

Thirdly, now the System knows it can impose an all-pervading dictatorship it will be tempted to do so again, for more directly political reasons. That is the only point in all this immediately relevant to Nationalists. That said, it is not yet clear if that current dictatorship will continue to function or will break down in a mixture of sullen non-compliance and street resistance. Hopefully so, or the veneer of “civil liberties” and a “free society” will have proved ephemeral indeed.

Ironically, the “human rights violations” inherent in the lockdowns and their enforcement would previously have drawn the ire of the very regimes now perpetrating them! The System has been revealed beyond dispute as utterly rooted in hypocrisy and lies, which must strengthen the long-term hand of national revolutionary forces seeking its overthrow.

Fourthly it is interesting that the measures implemented do not serve in any way, that I can see, the interests of global corporate capitalism. Indeed, quite the reverse. This shows its “Money Power” is not all powerful, which gives us hope. Nor indeed are our rulers, very evidently, wise, far-sighted or even basically competent. The obstacles in our path are evidently weaker and less formidable than we imagined!

Fifthly the virus is most likely a natural phenomenon, the latest of the epidemic diseases of other animals to jump to our species, in this case from rhinolophine bats. It is remotely possible it could be a bioweapon – the total absence of evidence that it is one either means it isn’t or that the developers have successfully concealed all trace and evidence of their work. Which they would have to do – unleashing, by design or accident, a bioweapon would be regarded by the rest of the world, and notably the United States, as the equivalent of a nuclear first strike, justifying right across the political spectrum of the West massive retaliation. Although its power is growing, China is not yet in a position to win, or even survive as a state or a society, such a conflict, knows this, and would therefore be most careful to avoid triggering it. The more so as the balance of forces is steadily tilting in its favour anyway. President Xi and his Government know this and have shown themselves anything but fools. As indeed they would be to put a bioweapons lab in the middle of Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, when anyone who, like me, has flown over China can see the vast expanses of wilderness covering the north and west of the country in which to keep it both hidden and safely isolated from any risk of accidentally harming their own people. As Chinese nuclear weapon sites are.

Ian Freeman argues that the anti-lockdown cause is discredited by crazy conspiracy theorising

All the other explanations of the pandemic being spouted – CoVID-19 “does not exist/was caused by the Government/a Paedophile Plot/Bill Gates/giant alien lizards/5G masts” etc. are, in the complete absence of the extraordinary evidence, or pretty much any evidence, needed to uphold such extraordinary claims simply deranged loony nonsense. The “lockdown-sceptic” movement, founded on a rational and sensible base of upholding our traditional freedoms and civil liberties and constitutional rights as ably argued by the likes of retired top judge Lord Sumption, is in serious danger of discrediting itself by association with a menagerie of these cranks and nutjobs, the likes of Piers Corbyn and the Giant Lizard Man David Icke. Were we to involve ourselves in this movement they would be used to discredit us and we would be used to discredit them. We would in my view gain nothing by doing so and would be wasting our time and resources.

As we would by getting drawn into the anti-vaxxer lunacy which will I suspect shortly rear its head – “any CoVID vaccine is a plot to poison us or take over our brains” etc. etc. There is a real danger a vaccine, which is the deus ex machina which will end this particular mess and save the System’s bacon, may be rushed out in haste with inadequate testing. To help counter which I would advise readers to do as I have and volunteer to test it – should the vaccine start turning me into a Giant Lizard I will be sure to let you all know.

My view is that we should avoid being drawn into any of this. We should not waste our time on any short-term tactical imbroglio around this pandemic, to which we have nothing in particular to contribute and whose outcome we are as yet too weak to influence anyway. Instead we should take a long-term strategic view on the – long warned about (including by me 15 years ago!) – and now visibly real Pandemic Threat. Of which CoVID is only the beginning.

For, given the endless proliferation of our species, the relentless pressure on formerly wild areas where hitherto untouched wild species may carry potential zoonoses of this sort, and the habit of, especially, the Chinese and non-Muslim Africans of eating exotic wildlife (“bushmeat”) there will certainly be many more of these pandemics from entirely natural causes in the coming years. This is not “a once in a century pandemic”: it is the first rumble of the coming storm, and of course was long predicted.

Our position should be that the Government may or may not have over-reacted to the threat of this current pandemic, but it certainly will under-react to the threat of the next one. And the one after that, and so on, some of them inevitably much worse than this historically very minor pandemic, with death rates not of 0.5-1% but similar to historical pandemics such as the Black Death and the Antonine and Justinianic Plagues, with 30 to 60% of the population dying. We do not know if our civilization could survive that. The origin of that threat lies in the very ideology of liberal capitalist internationalism and is one to which only nationalism has the answer.

For the root cause of the current pandemic, and the much worse ones that will surely follow, is their system based on globalisation and the large-scale rapid movement of people. Moreover, the threat is made worse by the biological and cultural homogenisation of the world’s population through mass Immigration and race mixing, a promotion of universal sameness touted in best Orwellian style as “promoting diversity”. Because that homogenization is turning our species into a genetically similar monoculture, and such monocultures, be they of crops, cattle or people, are most at risk from new diseases.

The best defence against future pandemics, the best way to “keep us safe” from future viruses, is to replace the current globalised world with a world of separate, genetically distinct nations, independent and as far as possible self-sufficient economies, in which new diseases are kept out behind strong, impermeable borders secured by firm quarantines on all arrivals. That world nationalism, and only nationalism, offers.

As recent events have shown, the globalist, internationalist alternative threatens not just our national and racial identities, about which not everyone cares, but all our own individual lives and those of our families, about which everyone does care. It is here, making that broad, strategic point, not messing about with cranks and loonies in the details of the current crisis, that Nationalists should be pitching in.

Taking a broader view against globalisation and internationalism to stop all future pandemics generally, rather than wasting our meagre resources opposing our governments’ floundering attempts to deal with this one specifically, plays to our Movement’s Unique Selling Point. The more so as many influential and expert minds will concede that we are basically right.

As can be seen from the leading textbook on this sort of thing, Global Catastrophic Risks, edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Cirkovic, published by Oxford University Press in 2008. A book our rulers evidently never bothered to read, at the cost now of our lives. On page 16 thereof, the Editors make our case for us thus:

“the evolution as well as the spread of pathogens is highly dependent on human civilization. The worldwide spread of germs became possible inhabited continents were connected by travel routes. By now, globalization in the form of travel and trade has reached such an extent that a highly contagious disease could spread to virtually all parts of the world within a matter of days or weeks.

“Kilbourne” (New York Medical College Professor Edwin Kilbourne, one of the world’s leading virologists and epidemiologists) “also draws attention to another aspect of globalization as a factor increasing pandemic risk: homogenization of peoples, practices, and cultures. The more the human population comes to resemble a single homogeneous niche, the greater the potential for a single pathogen to saturate it quickly. Kilbourne mentions the ‘one rotten apple syndrome’, resulting from the mass production of food and behavioural fads:

“If one contaminated item, apple, egg or, most recently, spinach leaf carries a billion bacteria not an unreasonable estimate and it enters a pool of cake mix constituents then packaged and sent to millions of customers nationwide, a bewildering epidemic may ensue.

“Conversely, cultural as well as genetic diversity reduces the likelihood that any single pattern will be adopted universally before it is discovered to be dangerous, whether the pattern be virus RNA, a dangerous new chemical or material, or a stifling ideology.”

So, the Science follows us. Nationalists, and only Nationalists, offer a way out of an endless nightmare of wave after wave of pandemics, of which CoVID-19 is but the first ripple, a tide which will sweep away our civilization. A tide only Nationalism can stem.

By taking such a long-term, strategic stand, we can win support – possibly rather reluctant support in some cases! – in circles which hitherto were closed to us. What governments do about the CoVID-19 pandemic may or may not prove them right in the short term. That is not, or should not be, our concern. The existence of the CoVID-19 pandemic proves us right in the long term. Our task is to focus on making that clear to all.

—————

Comment from H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton: – In several recent issues I have argued implicitly against Covid conspiracy theory, and explicitly against movement groups or parties engaging in militant anti-lockdown protests. My view on that isn’t likely to change. Although from a purely personal perspective I find the Covid regulations intensely annoying and obstructive, I don’t think there’s any political mileage movement-wise in positioning ourselves either in favour of wild conspiracy theory, or in favour of lawbreaking.

Having said that, I’m appalled by the heavy-handed police reaction to anti-lockdown demonstrators, as witnessed for example both in London and Melbourne.

Jean Raspail, Charles Krafft and David Dees

Jean Raspail (1925-2020)

According to Eliot, April is “the cruellest month” – but this year June has put in a strong bid.

No sooner had we published an obituary to our old friend and comrade Eddy Morrison, than we heard of the deaths of three very different major figures in the worldwide movement for White resistance and historical truth.

Jean Raspail – who died on June 13th three weeks before his 95th birthday – was without doubt the best known. H&D readers will probably best remember him for his 1973 novel Camp of the Saints, a dystopian perspective on mass non-White immigration and the swamping of Europe.

A regular H&D contributor who is proficient in French will be writing about Raspail in a forthcoming issue of the magazine, so for now we shall simply repeat Jean-Marie Le Pen’s tribute: “Jean Raspail has departed just at the moment when his prediction arrived.”

Though I never met Jean Raspail, I did meet and correspond with the American artist Charles Krafft, who died the same day aged 72. Rooted in the ‘pop art’ of late 1960s hippies, and first becoming known in such circles as part of an artistic commune in Fishtown near Seattle, by the 1990s Krafft had become a collectable ceramicist. That is to say, he was commercially successful and his work was exhibited in mainstream galleries and purchased by ‘respectable’ people – for example the chief executive of sportswear company Nike had a Charles Krafft teapot in his office.

One of Charles Krafft’s famous teapots

In 2016 Krafft visited London where an exhibition of his work was planned for an East London gallery. This was cancelled after pressure from ‘antifascist’ magazine Searchlight, but Krafft was able to speak at a London Forum meeting organised by Jez Turner, alongside David Irving, Richard Edmonds, Lady Michèle Renouf, Dave Yorkshire of Mjolnir magazine, and Abdallah Melaouhi, Rudolf Hess’s nurse at Spandau.

Charles Krafft generously donated some of his work to an auction to raise funds for Horst Mahler, the imprisoned German philosopher and activist.

It was only during the last twenty years or so that Krafft became active in political and revisionist movements: this cost him a great deal financially and in disruption to his artistic career. His courage and commitment will be long remembered.

Charles Krafft in his studio

A very different artist who also came to politics in middle-age was David Dees, who died on May 31st aged 62. (Like Charles Krafft, Dees died from cancer.)

Whereas much of Krafft’s work involved the Third Reich and militaria, Dees focused on ‘conspiracy theory’ – indeed his art has perhaps had more influence on more ‘conspiracy theorists’ than any other individual has achieved.

Formerly based in Louisville, Kentucky, Dees lived in California for the last decade. During the 2016 Republican primaries, future President Donald Trump proudly held up a Dees print showing him engaged in ‘whacking’ leading liberal ‘moles’.

Unfortunately Trump himself went on to become part of the problem – but there’s a difference between art and politics…

Like Charlie Krafft, David Dees was bravely and generously committed to the cause of Europeans who fight for historical truth (and who face long jail sentences for what would in other fields be ‘normal’ research).

When truth, justice and racial identity prevail, Europeans will celebrate the memory of Jean Raspail, Charles Krafft and David Dees. Very different though they were in background, temperament and ideology, all three of these men were valiant warriors for the cause of embattled Europeans.

Non-European immigration at record level

Newly released statistics show that net immigration to the UK from outside the European Union hit its highest level on record last year.

During 2019, 282,000 more non-EU citizens arrived in the UK than left. This was the highest such figure since this statistic began to be collected in 1975.

By contrast net immigration from EU countries declined to 49,000 – less than a quarter of the peak figure four years ago.

These statistics pre-date the Covid-19 pandemic, which will reduce both immigration and emigration for an indefinite period, though it’s worth pointing out that at least 20,000 people arrived in the UK infected with the virus before UK authorities got round to imposing restrictions.

Some commentators have explained the astonishingly high 2019 immigration figure in terms of increased numbers of students arriving from China and India, in particular.

What isn’t explained is whether all of these students go back home at the end of their courses: experience would suggest that many stay in the UK (legally or not).

One of the questions to be answered by any eventual inquiry into Covid-19 is the extent to which London’s massive overcrowding contributed to the virus’s spread. What’s already clear is that post-virus our bloated higher education system is no longer financially viable. Post-Covid reconstruction will depend on putting the British people first and ignoring the usual calls from the business community for a continued flow of immigrants.

Many of those who voted for Brexit believed (wrongly) that they were voting to turn off the immigration tap, when in fact the pro-Brexit lobby (from Nigel Farage down) were openly in favour of increasing non-EU immigration.

The government’s bungling of Covid-19 lockdown has already compromised the future of the next UK generation. It seems clear that a generation will grow up significantly poorer than their parents. It would be unforgivable if they also had to live in a country that was no longer either British or European.

Coronavirus predicted by nationalist science writer 14 years ago

As we all struggle to comprehend the scale and nature of the coronavirus crisis, it is interesting to look back at an article published fourteen years ago by the nationalist journal Scorpion.

This was written by a well-known nationalist activist who had a regular column in Scorpion under the pen-name ‘Loki’, and who presently contributes regularly to H&D under a different name.

Aside from formatting, we reproduce this article here unchanged – with thanks and acknowledgments to Scorpion – as our contribution to continuing discussions about the social/political implications of the present crisis.

Click here to read Loki on Health.

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.”

 

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter