An appalling week for British ‘justice’

Abdul Shakoor Ezedi, prime suspect still sought by the Metropolitan Police

Police are still searching for the “asylum seeker” Abdul Shakoor Ezedi, suspected of a vicious attack on a 31-year-old woman and her two young children in London on Wednesday.

As has been widely reported, Ezedi arrived in the UK illegally from Afghanistan in 2016. Almost eight years later, he (like many other similar illegal immigrants) is still here.

In Ezedi’s case this is especially extraordinary because he was convicted in 2018 for a sexual assault. His ‘asylum’ application was twice refused, but granted on the third occasion after the intervention of a priest who testified that Ezedi had converted to Christianity and would therefore be subject to ‘persecution’ in his home country.

Yet we know learn there is some doubt as to whether Ezedi is even an Afghan. Records suggest that he was born in Iran, a country where Christians are not subject to ‘persecution’.

In any case, to everyone outside the almost uniformly ‘woke’ ranks of 21st century Christian priests, it is manifestly absurd to believe that a barbarian becomes British on conversion to Christianity, or that illegal immigrants should be granted a free pass to remain in the UK simply by claiming to be Christian.

Though one might have thought that an Afghan (or Iranian) with visible injuries to the side of his face would be quite conspicuous, Ezedi seems for the moment to have melted into the background of multiracial Britain. The attack for which he is prime suspect occurred on Wednesday, and it is now Saturday, with police still searching for him.

British authorities bent over backwards to assist Ezedi, despite his having entered the country illegally and having been convicted of a sexual assault.

Contrast his case with that of the French scholar Vincent Reynouard, who by a bitter irony was this week deported from Scotland to France to face trial and almost certain imprisonment for the ‘crime’ of writing books and publishing videos about Second World War history.

While a nationwide manhunt was underway for a barbarian who hurled caustic liquid in the face of a young woman and her children, armed police were taking Vincent from his prison cell (where he has been incarcerated since November 2022 despite committing no crime under UK law) and placing the handcuffed historian onto a plane to Paris.

Vincent Reynouard was extradited from Scotland to France, guarded by armed police: whereas convicted sex offender Ezedi was allowed to remain in the UK.

200 miles south of Edinburgh – roughly halfway between Vincent’s jail cell and the London street where Ezedi’s attack took place – another political ‘criminal’ awaits sentencing.

Sam Melia, Yorkshire organiser of Patriotic Alternative, has been convicted of the ‘crime’ of producing stickers warning Britons about the consequences of the multiracial society and urging his fellow countrymen to campaign against the policies of mass immigration that we never voted for.

While Ezedi was allowed to remain in the UK as an illegal immigrant for eight years, Vincent Reynouard was jailed and extradited. While Ezedi was spared jail after conviction for a sexual assault, Sam Melia is likely to be jailed (in our alleged ‘democracy’) for producing stickers that promote a political argument.

Such is the state of justice in multiracial, woke-addled Britain. As Enoch Powell said in his famous speech on 20th April 1968: Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Sam Melia, seen here with his wife Laura Towler and their baby daughter, faces imprisonment for the ‘crime’ of producing stickers as part of a campaign against the transformation of his country by mass immigration.

Gains for TUV in Ulster council elections

Most results are now in from the local council elections in Northern Ireland, held on 18th May. These elections were postponed by a fortnight due to the STV proportional representation system, which meant that counting could not have been completed before the Coronation, had voting taken place on 4th May at the same time as the English elections.

As has previously been highlighted by H&D, Rishi Sunak’s supposedly ‘Conservative’ government seems happy to abandon the Union. Ministers made clear that they hoped unionist voters would swing away from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), led by Enoch Powell’s former campaign manager Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, towards parties that embrace Sunak’s sell-out agenda.

TUV leader Jim Allister (above right) with former Labour minister Baroness Hoey and former Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib

In fact DUP seems to have held on to most of its support, while there were significant gains for Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), the party that refuses to surrender sovereignty to Dublin and rejects a “sea border” between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

TUV won nine seats in total, a net gain of three. They held on to their five seats on the Mid & East Antrim Council; gained a seat in Cusher (a rural area of County Armagh); regained a seat in Ballymoney while gaining another in Causeway; and gained a seat in the Court area of Belfast.

The latter gain was especially symbolic, as Court DEA includes the Shankill and previously elected a councillor from the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), a party formerly aligned with loyalist paramilitaries but which in recent years has pursued a ‘woke’ agenda.

Until a few months ago, TUV might have expected even greater gains. But the party’s leaders would argue that it has succeeded in pulling DUP back towards its traditional agenda.

This election was a disaster for the two arms of liberal/leftwing unionism. The once-powerful UUP’s vote across the province fell from 14.2% to a new low of 10.9%, and it lost 21 of its previous 75 council seats. While the PUP disappeared from the electoral map completely, and its future now seems in doubt.

Reclaiming May Day for European workers!

The traditional celebration of Beltane in Edinburgh on the night of April 30th – May 1st

May Day was a traditional European festival long before it was hijacked by American Marxists in 1889.

Linked to the ancient celebration of Beltane (marking the midpoint between Spring Equinox and Summer Solstice), May Day is marked in Germany by Walpurgis Night and in England by traditional dances.

The Maypole is the best known English tradition associated with May Day

One of the most colourful celebrations of Beltane is in Edinburgh, which for H&D readers had a special significance this year because our comrade Vincent Reynouard has been in Edinburgh prison for more than five months. (An interview with Vincent will appear soon on this website and in the July-August edition of H&D.)

A sketch of the lost painting Floralia, by Antonio María Reyna Manescau, celebrating the Roman festival of spring. Only sketches survive because the painting (dating from the mid-1880s) was lost during the Spanish Civil War.

Racial nationalists have rightly begun to reclaim May Day as a European festival, and to assert the reality that we are the true champions of European workers.

The so-called ‘left’ has long since surrendered to the demands of global capitalism. Mass immigration is championed both in the name of ‘wokeness’ and to provide cheap labour, directly undermining the wages and working conditions of Europeans.

Meanwhile the so-called ‘right’ sometimes talks about resisting mass immigration, but in reality its reactionary ideology is in many ways worse than the ‘left’, and is even more devoted to the exploitative values of global capitalism: anti-nature, anti-worker, anti-White, anti-European.

On May Day 2023 H&D‘s comrades around the world asserted the eternal values of racial nationalism – the true interests of European workers.

H&D’s comrades from Devenir Europeo displayed a banner celebrating May Day in the centre of Madrid, at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Garden
The banner reads: “Neither Left nor Right, May 1st Belongs to the People”

Italy on the front line of African migrant ‘invasion’

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned EU leaders of an ever-worsening immigration crisis amid an ‘invasion’ from North Africa.

Meloni (who entered politics as a young activist in the neo-fascist party MSI and now heads a coalition of conservative and semi-nationalist parties) is derided by the liberal left as Europe’s most ‘far right’ leader since the Second World War. Her election victory last September was partly due to her promise to deal with Italy’s immigration crisis, but for reasons mainly beyond her control these problems have worsened rather than improved during her premiership.

Part of the crisis is due to dysfunctional governments in Tunisia and Libya. The collapse of Colonel Gadafy’s dictatorship in 2011 has led to a decade of chaos in Libya, where various warlords and factions battle for influence but have no interest in blocking the flow of illegal migrants (often crossing Libya from other parts of Africa). Meanwhile Tunisia’s own dictatorship is on the brink of collapse, and despite Meloni’s urging, the European Union and IMF are reluctant to send aid or loans that might encourage the Tunisians to cooperate in effective anti-immigration measures.

Giorgia Meloni celebrating her election victory last year: her problem in 2023 is how to deliver on her pledge to curtail illegal immigration.

The numbers involved in this Mediterranean migrant trade dwarf the problems of ‘small boats’ crossing the English Channel. Many H&D readers have justifiable doubts about Meloni, but she is surely correct to argue that the problem can only be addressed by concerted European action, not by any individual government.

As Sir Oswald Mosley suggested decades ago, and as Meloni is now arguing, the most credible approach would have to combine resolute action against ‘people traffickers’ (whom Meloni proposes to jail for up to 16 years) with aid to African governments that will be strictly conditional on these governments turning off the immigration tap.

The problem is that African governments might seek to take advantage of the situation by blackmailing Europe: an example of shameless surrender to such blackmail is the Spanish government’s deal with Morocco, which inter alia led to the prosecution of H&D correspondent Isabel Peralta.

Fundamentally the answer to this migrant crisis is for Europeans to rediscover their confidence, get off their knees, and cease apologising for the ruthless methods necessary to secure our borders.

Fascism, Women and Democracy – by Mosleyite veteran Norah Elam

Many British publications and institutions – including the National Archives, British Library, and universities throughout the UK – are celebrating Women’s History Month.

But few are likely to mention the fact that Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was supported by many of the women who had previously been active ‘suffragette’ campaigners.

Among them was Norah Elam (1878-1961) who was imprisoned in 1914 for her militant campaigning in favour of votes for women, and was interned at the same London prison – Holloway – in 1940 because of her active role in Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

Though she lived with fellow Mosleyite Dudley Elam (who was similarly interned without trial under the notorious Regulation 18b) and she took his name, Norah was never actually married to him, as she could not obtain a divorce from the husband she had married in 1909, so legally remained Norah Dacre Fox.

Alongside her prominent role in the women’s section of the BUF, Norah Elam was also a militant campaigner for animal rights and against vivisection.

Norah Elam, a leading activist in the women’s section of the British Union of Fascists

As part of H&D‘s contribution to Women’s History Month – and as a tribute to those women who continue to play important roles in the intellectual and practical leadership of racial nationalism – H&D is republishing online this essay by Norah Elam, first published in The Fascist Quarterly in 1935.

Fascism, Women and Democracy

“Experience shows that in all countries today democracy can develop its nature freely, the most scandalous corruption is displayed without anyone considering it of use to conceal its rascalities… Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers.” – Georges Sorel, Reflexions sur la Violence.

To a genuine cynic who lived through the struggle for votes for women from 1906 to 1914, no spectacle is more diverting than the post-war enthusiast whose one obsession seems to be the alleged danger to enfranchised women in a Fascist Britain.

This unsuspected solicitude finds its most insistent champions in unlikely places, and those who were so bitter against the pre-war struggle have today executed a complete volte face. Our new-found patrons are second to none in their determination that women shall be denied nothing in principle, even if in practice they are to be denied most things essential to their existence.

To the woman who took part in that historic fight, and, regarding the vote merely as a symbol, believed that with its help a new and a better world might be possible, this kind of patronage is as distasteful as was that of a generation ago. She thinks, and with some justification, that it is humbug that those who in all those weary years never raised a hand to help her, but on the contrary were wont to describe her as an unsexed virago or a disappointed spinster, should in the hour of success endeavour to exploit her sex in the interests of a reactionary and decadent system. Such effrontery is possible only because those who resort to it entirely misunderstood and still misunderstand the meaning of that struggle, and construed the demand for political liberty as a desire for personal licence.

Two of Norah Elam’s suffragette comrades – Annie Kenney (a working-class woman from Oldham) and Christabel Pankhurst, a middle-class woman from Manchester who achieved a law degree but was barred from the legal profession.

The time has come when the principles which underlay that remarkable and determined manifestation for ordered change, not only in the position of women but in the accepted attitude to them, should be restated.

What was it then, which underlay the passionate stirring that moved the hearts of thousands of women, and guided their heads, in those stormy years? It was not, as so many imagined, the ignoble desire of individual sex-interest, nor a struggle on behalf of women for their own sex alone. On the contrary, from the leaders to the most humble of the rank and file it was the fundamental belief, that in a world peopled by men and women and under a political system controlling the destinies of both sexes, the country which shut out from its councils the influence, viewpoint and talents of more than half its people, would be to that extent handicapped in working out the best system of government. If men were the victims of chaotic economic conditions, women suffered with them. If the social conditions under which men dragged out an almost hopeless existence were intolerable, they were equally so for their womenfolk.

Looking round on the great cities of their land, from north to south and from east to west, they saw housing conditions which man and woman agreed were a disgrace to modern civilization; watching the labour market, they gazed with apprehension on the spectre of insecurity which haunts the wage-earner and which is inherent in the old system. In the political field, they noted that, both in Home and Foreign policy, affairs were being conducted in such a manner as to strike terror into the heart of any person who cared deeply for Britain or realized the decadence that had already begun its erosion upon all parties of the State. They rose to demand that women should be called in on equal terms with men, to lend a hand before it was too late.

This uprising was in short a challenge to the old antagonisms and a call for co-operation in the corporate body of the State.

Norah Dacre Fox in 1915: together with suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst, the future Norah Elam was at this point a militant patriotic supporter of Britain’s war effort against the Kaiser’s Germany, though she later became an advocate of Anglo-German cooperation.

In this conception of practical citizenship, the women’s struggle resembles closely the new philosophy of Fascism. Indeed, Fascism is the logical, if much grander, conception of the momentous issues raised by the militant women of a generation ago. Nor do the points of resemblance end here. The Women’s movement, like the Fascist movement, was conducted under strict discipline, and cut across all Party allegiance; its supporters were drawn from every class and Party. It appealed to women to forget self-interest; to relinquish petty personal advantages and the privilege of the sheltered few for the benefit of the many; and to stand together against the wrongs and injustices which were inherent in a system so disastrous to the well-being of the race. Like the Fascist movement, too, it chose its Leader, and once having chosen gave to that Leader absolute authority to direct its policy and destiny, displaying a loyalty and a devotion never surpassed in the history of this country. Moreover, like the Fascist movement again, it faced the brutality of the streets; the jeers of its opponents; the misapprehensions of the well-disposed; and the rancour of the politicians. It endured the hatred of the existing Government, and finally the loneliness of the prison cell and the horror of forcible feeding. Its speakers standing in the open spaces and at the street corners were denied the right of free speech; it champions selling their literature spat upon and reviled; its deputations were manhandled. Suffragettes became the sport of any rowdy who cared to take the law into his own hands. To make the analogy the more exact, no calumny was too vile and no slander too base to set about the moral character of its leaders, or the aims and objects of the women who owed them allegiance.

Thus it came about that women welded together in such association had no illusions about political and party shibboleths, and when the sacred words “Democracy” and “Individual Liberty” were a commonplace on the lips of their detractors, they remembered that these things were done under a Liberal Administration, and by the champions of a Party which had made the democratic system the summit of its political wisdom. That under it, they were classed with criminals, lunatics and children. They argued and with some cogency, that if this were democracy then women had little to hope for from it.

Their experience as outlaws from the democratic system was as nothing compared with that which faced them, when they found themselves honoured citizens under its doubtful protection. They had earned, it is true, the right to individual liberty for a very brief space once every five years, but when they had put that fatal cross upon the ballot paper and closed the door of the polling booth behind them, from that moment they found themselves completely helpless before the democratic machine.

In 1914 militant suffragette Mary Richardson (1883-1961) was arrested for damaging a painting by Velázquez, the ‘Rokeby Venus’, at London’s National Gallery. She is seen here under arrest after this vandalism. Like several other ex-suffragettes, Mary Richardson later joined Mosley’s BUF, where she became head of the women’s section.

Though we shall be told that this was what we had fought for, a moment’s reflexion will show that this was regarded as but the symbol. Women never made the fatal error of imagining that because men voted they were necessarily free. It is the mark of the unintelligent woman today to suppose that a woman is free because she also votes, or that democracy can ever offer anything but the careful and organized exploitation of men and women who suffer it to exist.

Given the vote on a limited basis at the close of the War, women were also granted the right of entering Parliament, and the election in the late autumn of 1918 gave them their first opportunity. The Party system was already beginning to show the first signs of decay, and by the inexorable law of retributive justice, the Party which had given birth to democracy in Britain was in full retreat before its ungrateful offspring. Nevertheless, women in the first flush of their triumph turned to the then existing parties either as voters or prospective candidates.

Countess Markievicz (above), a supporter of IRA terrorism, became the first woman elected to the British Parliament. Despite having campaigned for women to have the vote, Norah Elam despised Markievicz and the IRA, and saw parliamentary democracy as a sham.

My own distrust of Party politics made me chary of turning in this direction, and I preferred to stand as an Independent, going down with all the other women candidates on this occasion, save one. The exception was the Sinn Fein Countess Markievicz, who though a notorious and avowed enemy of Britain, found it a perfectly simple matter under the democratic system to secure election to the Parliament of the country which she had openly boasted that she would destroy, disintegrate and discredit. She was, if I remember rightly, returned unopposed. The next example was hardly more encouraging, for the first woman to be elected for an English constituency was an American-born citizen who had no credentials to represent British women in their own Parliament, save that she had married a British subject who found himself forced to the Upper House on the death of his father. Detractors of the Women’s Movement pointed with a hardly disguised satisfaction to this denouement, and were at pains to hold up this lady as a sorry specimen of feminine irresponsibility. They need not have been so personal, for she was no better and no worse than any other woman elected to the British House of Commons, as a result of years of effort and struggle of the militant women. It is a sorry fact, though none the less true, that the subsequent election of Party women to Westminster has not made one tittle of difference either to men or to women, and though many able women have joined the ranks of our elected representatives their influence has been wholly negligible on the destinies of Britain or her Empire. They, like their men colleagues, are simply cogs in the Party wheels of the democratic system, marching into the lobbies at the crack of the Party Whip, helpless before the Juggernaut of the official machinery which rolls on, crushing all initiative and independence before it, and reducing every person who owes it allegiance to a mere cipher for the carrying through of its policies and its measures. And if this be true of Parliament – and who can deny it? – it is even more true of the woman voter. She, too, is caught up in this inexorable system, a veritable slave to her Party organization.

To those who challenge this, the question must be put: What power has the woman member or the woman voter, under the present system, to alter any one policy of any government yet elected? Does the most enthusiastic admirer of the present system allege that women, no matter to what party they belong, are satisfied with the existing position of this country?  Are they willing to see economic conditions whereby the employment figures have reached the incredible total of between two and three millions remain unchanged? Do they rest content with the spectacle of those derelict areas which strike despair into the heart of every living person? Are they indifferent to the decay of the agricultural districts and the plight of the farming industry and unconcerned with the appalling housing conditions which all parties alike deplore?

The British Union of Fascists strongly supported farmers driven into poverty during the 1930s by the imposition of tithes, a form of taxation by the church. This was one of many issues where Norah Elam saw women and men having a common interest in challenging a rapacious and unjust system.

Turning to the vast field of Imperial and Foreign politics, is it to be contended that the bulk of British women desire to see the disintegration of the Empire, or the orientation of the present foreign policy of the alleged National Government, whereby pacts and commitments are being made in their names and in secret with the avowed enemies of this country, while at the same time we are being left defenceless, not only for the purposes of our own immediate defence, but if the need should arise to honour those commitments? Do we indeed know to what we are being committed; what this policy of collective security involves, or what is the sinister power which dictates it? “Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers,” says Georges Sorel. Have enfranchised women any power to check a Home or a Foreign policy dictated for the purpose of making that dream a living reality? Let it be remembered that when the time comes to foot the bill, we shall be driven as sleep to the slaughter, helpless before the results of these policies. What is the value of so-called freedom if it cannot give us the power to alter these momentous issues?

If it be true that the average woman voter wants none of these things, why, if she be free under the democratic system, does she permit them? If she possesses this freedom, is she not doubly and trebly guilty in suffering them for one hour longer? This is the test of her claim to a responsible part in the government of her country. If she has gained the necessary power and liberty under the existing system, the charge that she is incapable of playing a citizen’s part in the affairs of her country, and is in fact unfitted for responsibility, is proved up to the hilt.

None of these things is true. The truth will be found in the fact that there is no freedom either for men or for women under the present antiquated system. What fetters both men and women is that the Party system is in decay, and this is the more noticeable since the granting of adult suffrage under an unbridled democracy. Throughout the world the same decadence has set in, by the inevitable march of time and circumstance, the change from a world of poverty to a world of boundless plenty makes ordered planning not only requisite but vital to existence. Under these changes the methods of the old world are obsolete and must give place to the new. If women are to be worthy of their place in the councils of the nation, they must face as realists the new world conditions which are gathering round them. Sooner or later they must choose. The decision is momentous, for upon it will depend the status of women for a considerable period of time. It is therefore no light matter that they should weigh well in the balance the history of the world.

The future Lady Mosley, then Diana Guinness (above, second right) with her sister Unity Mitford and the children of her first marriage to Bryan Guinness. Her eldest son Jonathan (above, far right) became chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, and today is his 93rd birthday.

There are two courses open to women. The first is that she should struggle on with the decaying system of the old world, content to be the handmaid of the professional politicians of the various parties to which she attaches herself. Of this it may be said that she has given it a long and faithful trial, and that if under it she could have accomplished any practical change in the direction of social, political or economic freedom, she has lamentably failed. She must now consider whether the fault lies within herself or within the system to which she still clings. In this connexion she will note that the separate parties are themselves gradually disappearing. The Liberal Party has passed into the twilight of the past; the Conservative Party is in rapid disintegration, and we know upon the assurance of its own Leader, that there is no hope of its regaining its independence. The same fate awaits the Socialist Party, since it too must travel along the same road which has sucked the other two parties under the quicksand of Social Democracy.

She must therefore look for some better system; one more in accord with modern conditions. What is to take the place of the tottering edifice of the past?

Every student of politics realizes that the issue now lies between Fascism and Communism. So far as British women are concerned, Communism makes little appeal. To go no further, it is the philosophy of destruction, and is the negation of the natural instincts of womanhood. It is the antithesis of every principle and practice which women value and require.

Members of the BUF Women’s Drum Corps

Fascism seems to be the only solution. It has within it every principle peculiarly suitable and adaptable to the genius of the British character. It offers real freedom and liberty to all men and women of goodwill towards this country. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, we shall define these so often loosely-used terms, in words with which no democrat will quarrel, for they are taken from that apostle of unadulterated democracy, John Stuart Mill.

“The sole end,” he wrote, “for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

This is precisely the Fascist conception of individual liberty, and it is obviously a conception that so far as women are concerned gives them every opportunity that they can legitimately require in their future status as women citizens. In no other system are these principles embodied. Moreover, in the machinery of the Corporate State, Fascism assures women an equal status with their menfolk, for it holds within it the only means whereby they will be enabled to direct and control the conditions under which they shall live; thus Fascism alone will complete the work begun on their behalf by the militant women from 1906 to 1914. In addition, it will rescue them from the vitiated atmosphere of corruption inherent in the Party system, and for the first time it will give an opportunity, through the machinery of their own special Corporations, tackling with some hope of success those great questions which so closely concern their own and their children’s lives.

In the economic field it will assure security with equal pay for equal work, that eternal bone of contention which has rent the sexes asunder with such dire results to industry.

In the social sphere, it removes all class barriers, while in the political, it gives justice and equality for the first time in the history of the Women’s struggle.

And most important of all, Fascism comes to lay for ever the haunting spectre of war, by removing the fundamental causes, which exist and have their being in Internationalism, an instrument forged for the purpose of enabling “unscrupulous financiers” to take advantage of that “land of plenty” called “democracy” of which they dream.

To enable all this to be accomplished, Fascism will require that women equally with men should offer a disciplined cooperation in the welding together of an ordered State, and Fascism will rightly lay upon all the citizens of the State the responsibility and the duty of working in harmony, not in the interests of any section or class but for the benefit of all its people. It will call upon women as upon men, to subordinate all selfish individual privileges, that the less fortunate may under its protection be safe from exploitation.

This is Fascism. All else is mirage. Is it to be said that British women cannot rise to this great occasion in the history of their country? Those who would bid them reject this opportunity are the enemies not alone of women, but of all progress and of civilization. Those women who endured the ordeal of the great struggle of pre-war days have at least learned the right to challenge the people who once again would enslave them in the subjugation of the past, and fetter them within a system which denies them all opportunity to play an honourable part in the necessary reorganization of their country. British women have never failed or faltered when Britain has had need of them. They too, with the men of their generation, will raise aloft the banner of British Fascism, and bearing it high above the turmoil and sordid quarrels of the Party system, will hasten that day which shall see their nation reborn. In that triumphant hour, they will have truly earned the proud right to pay homage to a regenerated and Great Britain, and to rest at last within the Peace, Security and Prosperity of her Sovereign People.

Lady Mosley with her husband Sir Oswald Mosley and their son Max in 1940. They were both interned without trial that year under Regulation 18b.
Two of Europe’s leading racial nationalist activists of the new generation – Isabel Peralta and Laura Towler – at a Heritage and Destiny event in September 2022.

Winter Solstice 2022

Greetings from H&D to all readers celebrating the Winter Solstice this evening.

Our ancestors across Europe marked this as the day with fewest hours of sunlight: the darkest point of the year.

And so they celebrated the fact that from now on the sun becomes stronger, with the promise of renewed life and the certainty of next year’s crops.

Recently European peoples have been reminded that food doesn’t simply come from the supermarket, and many of our fellow citizens are facing an especially hard winter.

As racial nationalists these continue to be hard times in ways that transcend such daily material questions. The recent UK census provided further evidence that our very existence is under threat from mass immigration.

Yet the message of the Solstice is that even at the darkest hour, hope remains.

Political progress from the darkness of ignorance and barbarism to the renewed light of European civilization and racial identity will be slow, but here at H&D we believe that this recovery will happen and will be relentless, whatever methods our enemies use to prevent a White British and White European renaissance.

Whether you celebrate the Solstice as a religious festival or as a political allegory, H&D wishes you all a Happy Yuletide.

Madrid authorities seek to jail H&D writer in blatant political prosecution

Madrid prosecutors aim to jail Isabel Peralta, H&D’s European correspondent, for her comments at a demonstration last year.

Isabel Peralta – European correspondent of H&D who recently addressed our meeting in Preston – is in court this week in Madrid, where the authorities aim to jail her for three years.

The case has been brought under Spain’s equivalent of the UK’s racial incitement laws, but as our assistant editor Peter Rushton explains in this article, Isabel is being targeted in blatant political machinations: not only by the Spanish government, but also by lobbyists working in the interests of the Moroccan government.

For this and other reasons which we shall disclose in a later article, the prosecution of Isabel Peralta is a disgrace to Spanish justice. If she is convicted, the matter will be appealed if necessary as far as the European Court. Spanish politicians and Moroccan lobbyists are the true criminals, working against the interests of Spain and against the interests of Europeans.

Isabel Peralta addressing H&D’s event in Preston a few weeks ago

The case dates back to 18th May 2021, when a demonstration was held outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid by a Spanish nationalist youth group. Isabel was at the time a leading activist in this group.

In an interview and speech, both of which were later broadcast on YouTube, Isabel explained the purpose of this demonstration: to draw attention to the attempted blackmail being exerted by the Moroccan Government, who were threatening to flood Spain with immigrants unless Spain accepted Moroccan control over Western Sahara.

This is a diplomatic dispute that has been going on for more than half a century, ever since Spain gave up its colonial control over the province once known as Spanish Sahara. Morocco seeks to grab the entire area for itself, but is opposed by an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.

It is in Spaniards’ economic interest to back the Polisario, partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas. But for the past two years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.

Spain’s shameless Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez being entertained by leading politicians in Morocco in April 2022 after his government’s surrender to Moroccan blackmail.

Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood, just as it fails to resist mass immigration from elsewhere.

Essentially this was the background to the demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.

Isabel’s interview and speech was making a serious and well-informed case. She explained that the demonstrators had come to the Embassy “to stand up to the indecency of our politicians who look the other way, while we suffer unprecedented racial replacement”.

She emphasised that “the problem here is not Morocco. The problem is what purports to be our own government, which with impunity sets off this explosion: the arrival of immigrants on a massive scale.”

Since politicians were not prepared to stand up to the Moroccan government’s blackmail, Spanish nationalist youth had to come forward. Isabel concluded her interview with words that require some explanation to British readers: “We shall not allow another Green March.”

Moroccan invaders on the ‘Green March’ in November 1975

The Green March – on 6th November 1975 – was the deliberate incursion by 350,000 Moroccans (organised by their government) into what was still Spanish colonial territory, in what is now Western Sahara. Because Spain was beginning its decolonisation, its soldiers were ordered not to open fire and to accept what was essentially an invasion.

So the Green March was a Spanish surrender, abandoning their responsibility to their former colonial subjects. Spain signed the so-called Madrid Accords, which effectively rewarded Morocco for their illegal invasion. (Part of the problem was that this was happening during the last weeks of General Franco’s life: he was dying and incapable of exercising any political authority.)

During her speech to the rally outside the Moroccan Embassy, Isabel picked up the theme that had concluded her interview: “Now as in 1975, they are trying again and they are coming with force, and 5,000 now seems like a lot to us, but in ten years they will seem like few, because if we do not stop them this will be our future: immigration in Europe will supplant our race, our diversity, our religion and our culture, and we are the only ones who are going to fight for it.”

The context is very clear: Isabel is correctly comparing the surrender in 1975, when the Spanish government gave in to Moroccan invaders and betrayed the indigenous people of Western Sahara, to the potential surrender in 2021-2022, when today’s Spanish government is similarly weak in the face of Moroccan threats.

Isabel addressing the Embassy rally in May 2021. Her accurate analysis of Spain’s surrender to Moroccan blackmail has resulted in Isabel herself – not treacherous politicians and lobbyists – facing trial!

It turned out that Isabel was absolutely correct. Not only has the Madrid government continued to allow floods of immigrants, it has also surrendered to Morocco’s blackmail. In March 2022, almost a year after Isabel’s comments, Spain’s socialist government carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position, abandoning the decades-long Spanish policy that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants.

The U-turn threatens vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas from Algeria.

The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.

As so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.

This time it is our correspondent Isabel Peralta who is on the frontline. As they prepared their surrender to Morocco, the Spanish authorities launched a prosecution of Isabel, which has come to court in Madrid this week. Prosecutors are asking for her to be jailed for up to three years.

In presenting her interview and speech as inciting racial violence, prosecutors have deliberately ignored its political context. They have not only deliberately distorted her speech, they have even omitted crucial words from the transcript. Isabel clearly said that the demonstration was anti-immigration, but not motivated by hatred of any race. Such hatred, she emphasised, would be absurd since our entire political outlook is based on recognition of racial differences. We are motivated, she pointed out, “by admiration and devotion to our own race in the face of a threat to its very existence”.

The political manipulation at the heart of this case is obvious from official papers that I have examined.

Mohammed Chaib (above, third left) at an official Moroccan event with his good friend Karima Benyaïch, the Moroccan Ambassador to Madrid, plus socialist MP Ricardo Garcia and Spain’s honorary consul in Morocco, Khadija El Gabsi. Chaib has extensive Moroccan business interests – an employee of his foundation brought the only criminal complaint against Isabel’s speech.

Ten days after the demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, an employee of a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. Later the same day these police officers sent a report to the prosecutors: this was the first step in the process leading to Isabel’s criminal trial.

The political police (duly followed by prosecutors) presented Ms Bencrimo’s complaint against Isabel as though it reflected a charity standing up for ordinary immigrants who felt threatened by Isabel’s words. In the entire prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages, which I have studied in detail, Ms Bencrimo’s is the only complaint from anyone outside Spanish officialdom.

Yet the organisation this complainant represented – the Ibn Battuta Foundation – is not as simple as police and prosecutors pretend.

Its president is Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, a veteran politician and businessman with close personal and financial ties to the Moroccan government – the very people whose actions were being exposed and criticised in Isabel’s speech.

Chaib is a former MP in both the Catalan and Madrid parliaments for the left-wing party PSC (Socialists Party of Catalonia). But he is also a wealthy businessman with financial interests in his native Morocco, and in particular stands to benefit from Morocco taking control of Western Sahara. Since 1992 he was been director of business development in Morocco for COMSA Industrial, a company with vast interests in engineering and construction projects in Morocco, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

Mohammed Chaib (second left) with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Chaib’s business will profit greatly from Sánchez’s surrender to Morocco over Western Sahara; meanwhile the politicised Spanish police prosecute Isabel Peralta for drawing attention to the treachery of Sánchez’s government. An employee of Chaib’s foundation brought the complaint that facilitated this prosecution.

It is a remarkable coincidence that the “charity worker” who brought the complaint against Isabel Peralta was an employee of Chaib’s foundation.

H&D fully supports our brave and brilliant comrade Isabel. We look forward to her victory over this politically motivated prosecution – however long that victory takes.

We shall be reporting further on the development of this case, and on the related political persecution of Isabel in Germany, which was assisted by border security in our own country who disgracefully detained her for more than six hours a few weeks ago during her visit to England. Check this website and our January edition of H&D for more extraordinary revelations about the state of European justice.

Celebrate St Edmund – the original English Patron Saint

Today – November 20th – is St Edmund’s Day. While St George (who had no historical connection to England) is commonly regarded as our Patron Saint, the original Patron Saint of England was St Edmund, who was King of East Anglia for about fourteen years until he was killed by Danish invaders in 869.

These invaders destroyed all records of Edmund’s reign, so it’s no longer even known precisely when and where he was born.

But about 150 years after his death, the Anglo-Danish King Canute converted to Christianity and began the tradition of venerating St Edmund as a Christian martyr and Patron Saint of England. For the next 500 years the abbey that Canute founded to house his relics, at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, was one of England’s most important shrines, attracting pilgrims from across the country.

The Wilton Diptych, one of the most important survivals of mediaeval English art, includes this depiction of St Edmund (above left).

Mediaeval chroniclers depicted Edmund as having been born in Nuremberg and descended from Saxon kings. His actual birthplace is uncertain, though we do know that the East Anglia over which he ruled was one of several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in what later became England, and was established around 550 by Germanic tribes arriving from the Frisian region (in what is now the Netherlands and north-western Germany) and Jutland (in what is now Denmark).

St Edmund’s origins, his death, and even the date of his feast day, combine to make him a highly appropriate patron saint of England in 2022 – when more than ever we should be aware of our racial roots and aware of the need for solidarity with our fellow Europeans against the encroaching tyranny of the multiracial new world order.

The flag of St Edmund was England’s original symbol, long before the flag of St George

Liberals tell us we are a nation of immigrants, and point to the successive waves of migration that created England: including Edmund and his Anglo-Saxon ancestors, as well as the Viking invaders who killed him.

Racial nationalists by contrast understand that our fellow Europeans are our racial cousins, whereas the offspring of non-Europeans remain fundamentally alien, whether they were born in London or Lagos.

So whether he was born in Nuremberg or Norwich, St Edmund was an English king and a European king.

A statue of St Edmund stands outside St Edmundsbury Cathedral

The fact that 20th November is the Feast Day of St Edmund, King and Martyr, is also appropriate for another reason. Today on the frontline of the European racial nationalist battle against alien tyranny, our Spanish comrades mark the anniversary of the martyrdom of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the Falangist leader murdered by communists on this day 87 years ago. November 20th has for decades been a day of pilgrimage for Spanish nationalists to the Valley of the Fallen, where he was buried in a vast basilica carved out of a mountain near Madrid.

The 21st century equivalents of his murderers now aim to desecrate José Antonio’s grave at this memorial to the victims of the Spanish Civil War. As H&D‘s European correspondent Isabel Peralta explains in the video below, this is part of a tyrannical “democratic memory law” by which Spain’s left-wing government is imposing a particular version of history. In this one-eyed ‘history’, the Spanish communists and their allies are to be treated as heroes – in fact Spain this month has a new postage stamp celebrating its Communist Party – whereas nationalists are to be damned as villains.

Isabel herself will next week face trial under the Spanish equivalent of the UK’s race laws: a politically motivated trial designed to distract from the failure of Spain’s immigration policy. H&D will soon be reporting on this trial, and before then we shall have a report on today’s commemoration of José Antonio.

The battle for Europe continues – and St Edmund is the ideal patron saint for Englishmen to concentrate our minds on this battle.

So let us all celebrate St Edmund today, celebrate the legacy of José Antonio, and celebrate the new generation of racial nationalists who will reclaim and rebuild a Europe fit for Europeans.

British Expat Says: “No Matter Bad the U.S. Immigration Disaster, the U.K. Is Worse”

John Derbyshire (above left with Peter Brimelow of VDARE and Sam Dickson) is a expatriate Briton long resident in the USA. This article was first published at VDARE.com

We just got numbers for illegal aliens apprehended on our southern border last month: a tad short of 240,000 . That’s the highest number of migrant encounters recorded in one month ever. It brings total encounters in Fiscal Year 2022 to more than one and a half million.

That’s “encounter,” mind. The actual encounter being tallied there is one between an invader and a Border Patrol officer. Either the invader presents himself to Border Patrol with some plausible claim for entry, or he tried to sneak in avoiding the Patrol but got caught by chance. Some large but unknown number of sneak-ins did not get caught.

The good news is that 42 percent of these encounters were deported—or at any rate, “processed for deportation”—under Title 42, the Trump-era protocol allowing deportation on health grounds that Joe Biden tried to end until he was thwarted by a judge.

The other 58 percent are being processed under Title 8 of current immigration law. That will result in some number of them being deported. How many: fifty percent? a hundred percent? ten percent? I don’t know.

For a clue I have this from Washington Examiner:
“More than 2 million migrants were stopped while attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico illegally in the calendar year 2021 [not to be confused with fiscal year] … Of the 2 million, roughly 1.1 million were immediately expelled back to Mexico or flown to other countries. Some attempted crossing multiple times, inflating the numbers. But nearly 800,000 were released into the U.S.”
(‘Two million stopped while illegally entering US from Mexico in 2021’, by Anna Giaritelli, January 24, 2022)

As dumb and treasonous as our current immigration policies are, they fairly glow with integrity, efficiency, and patriotism by comparison with Britain’s. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say—and I say it in all earnestness—that Britain’s clueless, brainless, worthless government is currently perpetrating the greatest immigration fiasco since Chinese General Wu Sangui opened the gates of China to the Manchus in 1644.

I’ve been reporting to you, most recently on June 3rd, about the swelling numbers of illegal aliens crossing the English Channel from France—more than ten thousand so far this year.

This is the fourth year it’s been happening. The numbers for these four years, to the nearest thousand: 2019—two, 2020—eight, 2021—twenty-nine. Estimates for this year’s total start at fifty; and once again, these are thousands, so that’s fifty thousand.

Essentially none of these invaders get expelled. They plead asylum or refugee status, although that is a priori preposterous: they’re coming most recently from France, where they could also have claimed asylum. They destroy their identity documents so they can’t be deported. The British authorities conscientiously process their bogus asylum claims anyway, putting them up in good hotels while the processing is under way.

For three of those four years the invasion went on with the British government doing nothing at all about it. This, incredible to report, is a government of the Conservative Party; but these are metropolitan progressives led by a Prime Minister who has, all through his political career, been well-known as an enthusiast for multiculturalism.

Then, earlier this year, pressure from voters became too strong to ignore. The government grudgingly agreed to do something about the invasion.

A Rwandan hotel for the poor, oppressed ‘asylum seekers’

What did they do? They cut an agreement with the black African country of Rwanda to take in some of the illegals while their obviously-fake asylum applications were processed. We first heard that 700 illegals would be shipped to Rwanda, to be accommodated in that country’s hotels.

Britain, however, is choc-a-bloc with well-funded groups who favor mass illegal immigration. They got busy lawyering. That 700 was quickly whittled down to 130—which is still a good plane-load.

By the time the first flight to Rwanda was scheduled for Tuesday last week, the 130 had been further whittled down to seven. The pro-illegal activists swung into action on Tuesday, blocking exit routes from the airport detention center and lawyering up a frenzy. By late Tuesday it seemed there was just one illegal left on the plane.

Then some outfit called the European Court of Human Rights issued an injunction to prevent that one illegal being deported. So the flight was cancelled. Number of illegals deported: zero.

Wait: Didn’t the Brits unshackle themselves from Europe? How come they have to obey this ruling by a bunch of Frogs, Krauts, Dagos, and Wops? I have no idea. Nobody in Britain seems to have any idea, either.

While all this was going on, of course several hundred new scofflaws landed in Britain and were escorted to nice hotels.

Did I say “fiasco”? This makes our own Border Tsar—or “Tsarina,” I guess—this makes Kamala Harris look like a strategic mastermind.

As an ex-Brit, in a spirit of nostalgic affection for the old place, I hereby offer my advice to the British government free of charge.

  • Arrest everyone who lands in your country illegally. Confine them in special secure camps, with the right to self-deport at any time. (What, you don’t have those kinds of facilities? Then build them, dammit. When COVID came up the ChiComs built a 1,500-room hospital in five days.)
  • Children should be placed in care facilities with adequate nutrition and basic education. If I remember my Charles Dickens correctly, Britain used to excel at this.
  • You are welcome to my suggestion that you restore the excellent former system of hulks: surplus ships fitted out with secure cells, like those used to handle the overflow from Britain’s prisons in the 18th and 19th centuries. Hulks have the advantage that they can be moored well offshore, so they don’t cause offense to the pleasant British landscape the way on-shore camps would. They also spare the hassle of getting land rights and so on. Hulks: what’s not to like?
  • The tens of thousands of illegal aliens already in Britain as a result of these past four years of inaction need to be rounded up and incarcerated as above.

The easy way to do this is to rescind any rights they have been given to work in your country. To avoid them working illegally, establish an E-verify system based on National Insurance Number (that’s the British equivalent of a Social Security Number), with brutal penalties for employers who hire without checking.

That should take care of the problem.

No, no, no need to thank me. You’re welcome!

—–

John Derbyshire writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

For years he’s been podcasting at Radio Derb, now available at VDARE.com for no charge. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

Full acknowledgements to VDARE and John Derbyshire for letting us reprint the article:

VDARE.com news – America’s Immigration Voice.
The VDARE Foundation, PO Box 211, Litchfield, CT 06759, USA

Editor’s note:
John Derbyshire was born in Northampton, in the south Midlands, in June 1945. He attended the Northampton School for Boys and graduated from University College London, where he studied mathematics. He emigrated to the USA in the 1960s. Before turning to writing full-time, he worked on Wall Street as a computer programmer. John worked as a writer at National Review until he was terminated in 2012 because of an alleged “racist” article published in Taki’s Magazine.
He then moved on to work for Vdare, where he could write more freely.

In 1996 he wrote the novel Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream which was a New York Times “Notable Book of the Year”. His 2004 non-fiction book Prime Obsession won the Mathematical Association of America’s inaugural Euler Book Prize. A political book, We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism, was released in September 2009.

I met John over 25 years ago at an American Renaissance Conference in Northern Virginia, and recently sent sent him a copy of Heritage and Destiny magazine.

Woke censorship of UK Latin teaching

The tide of ‘woke’ political correctness has finally reached one of the final bastions of traditional British education – the small number of schools that still teach Latin.

Classical education was fundamental to many generations of Britons, including those who built and ruled the British Empire (often in conscious emulation of the Romans). Now that traditional education is deemed to have transgressed against the holy commandments of ‘woke’.

At the centre of the row is the Cambridge Latin Course, a series of books first introduced in 1970 and now used in the vast majority of those British schools that still teach Latin. (Although when I was taught Latin from 1978-1984, we used much older textbooks, and until this row developed I knew nothing of these Cambridge books.)

The books teach children their first simple Latin phrases by introducing the household of a Roman called Lucius Caecilius – a real man who lived in Pompeii, the city largely destroyed by volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Caecilius himself had probably died seventeen years before this eruption, but his home can still be seen in the ruins of Pompeii and some of its contents are in the Naples archaeological museum.

The problem for modern politically correct censors is that Caecilius – like all wealthy Romans of his era – owned slaves. These slaves were probably White, but the racial politics of our own era means that any mention of slavery requires all White people to grovel in apology, however absurd, ahistorical or otherwise meaningless such apologies are.

The teaching of history is no longer an end in itself – still less is it allowed for Europeans to have any pride in their classical ancestry. Rather, it is compulsory to search for aspects of the past that lead to denigration of our own civilisations.

In addition, the school and university curriculum must be purged of anything that might cause offence to any protected group. The league table of protected groups is headed by Jews, then extends via ethnic minorities, the infinitely expanding variety of sexual minorities, and eventually to women in general. The only group without a victim card to play in this game are White men.

And the problem with the Cambridge Latin Course is that the slaves in Caecilius’ household are portrayed as going about their daily tasks in a normal and even happy environment.

A nuanced approach to teaching Latin (and Ancient History) would have to accept that there were many brutal realities, or just very strange aspects of life in the ancient world that are not suitable for young children, so inevitably when they are introduced to this world it will be in a sanitised and incomplete form.

But for the woke generation of teachers, the whole point of teaching any subject is to instil wokeness. So the Cambridge Latin Course seems likely to be scrapped, and replaced by something that better suits the brainwashing agenda of the 2020s.

Perhaps one of Roman history’s traditional villains will be reinvented as a hero for the 2020s?

Publius Clodius was a vicious gangster and pervert whose murder by a rival gangster in 52 BC led to one of the great speeches by Cicero, the most famous legal orator in history, who successfully defended Clodius’ murderer Titus Annius Milo.

In this speech (Pro Milone) Cicero refers to Clodius’ part in one of the greatest scandals of Ancient Rome some ten years earlier, when Clodius disguised himself as a woman in order to infiltrate the traditional women-only religious rite of the Bona Dea.

This was an all-night festival conducted at the home of Rome’s ceremonial chief priest (on this occasion Julius Caesar), but in an environment that was not only all-female but which had to be ritually cleansed of all male associations before the ceremony (even of male animals or works of art portraying men).

So when Clodius dressed as a woman and attended the event, it was a major scandal, inevitably involving rumours of sexual perversion involving Caesar’s then wife and even Clodius’ own sister. Modern readers are perhaps most familiar with the case because of the phrase Caesar used when divorcing his wife: although there was no proof that she had connived with Clodius, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”.

The scandal of Publius Clodius at the rite of the Bona Dea, as depicted in 1810 in an engraving by Silvestre David Mirys

Clodius was prosecuted for incestum (which in Roman law meant ‘sacrilege’ rather than what we would now call ‘incest’, though one of the allegations was that he had indeed committed incest with his sister).

He was eventually acquitted because a powerful political ally bribed the jury. In 2022 the verdict of woke historians does not need to be bought. After all in our world, we are no longer permitted to recognise biological differences between men and women, so the Bona Dea ceremony itself would be unacceptable and Clodius would be judged a pioneering transsexual hero!

Perhaps the cross-dressing adventures of Clodius will replace the now-unacceptable Cambridge Latin Course as a means of introducing children to the classical world?

Or more likely the entire history of that world will be scrapped, and replaced by something more suitable for teaching European children that they must bow down before Africans.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers