New party set to emerge from Patriotic Alternative

After several months of discussions over whether and when Patriotic Alternative should register as a political party, PA’s national administration officer Kenny Smith and his fiancée Claire Ellis have resigned to create a new party. They are backed by six regional organisers: Si Crane (Scotland), Anthony Burrows (East Midlands), Fraser Patterson (SE England), Laurence Somerset (SW England), Jerome O’Reilly (Wales), and Connor Marlow (West Midlands).

Their new organisation will be known as the Homeland Party. According to a statement issued on Thursday evening, 32 of PA’s 54 officials are quitting to join Homeland.

However, despite speculation in ‘anti-fascist’ circles, PA’s deputy leader Laura Towler and her husband, Yorkshire regional organiser Sam Melia, are supporting PA’s founder and leader Mark Collett, and at least two of the departing ROs have already been replaced.

Unlike earlier splits this seems to be a genuine difference of opinion over movement strategy, not a question of personal bitterness or allegations of impropriety.

In a letter circulated to senior activists on 12th April, Kenny Smith said that he had been concerned about the direction of PA since last December. He wrote of a failure of political direction; “no focus on community politics”; and “no real effort to get registered as a political party”.

He drew the conclusion that PA’s “overfocus on online streaming” meant that PA had become “a glorified social club”.

At first in this 12th April letter, Kenny stated that he would not be “joining any other organisation, but a week later (having been approached by numerous senior figures in PA) he has created the Homeland Party and states that he has the backing of 32 of the 54 PA officers.

The PA leadership’s response has essentially been to emphasise “business as usual”. Mark Collett and Laura Towler (alongside Eastern England regional organiser Steve Blake) addressed an online gathering of more than 60 supporters hosted by Radio Albion on 20th April. Laura maintained that much of the “split” talk amounted to “Chinese whispers” and that outside Scotland only seventeen people had confirmed their departure from PA.

H&D has no reason to doubt the honesty of the leaders of either side in this split. No doubt Laura was being strictly truthful in stating this on Thursday, but equally there’s no doubt that those seventeen will by now have taken significant numbers of PA supporters with them.

There’s good reason to hope that this will not be the sort of bitter division that has scarred our movement in the past, and that even when two separate groups are established – PA and the Homeland Party – they will form part of a racial nationalist movement that moves towards unity rather than atomisation.

PA is moving to a new membership structure but still seems a long way from registering as a political party with the Electoral Commission.

In a live stream broadcast on Thursday night, Mark and Laura addressed three key issues:
– PA’s vetting system; they did not wish to “do away with” the vetting system but felt that it had been applied in too strict a manner that had alienated some potential activists. Mark Collett wanted a more flexible system, allowing regional organisers more autonomy to adopt the level of security vetting they found appropriate.
– PA’s political direction; Mark resented the imputation that he is not interested in “community politics”; he points out that alongside his regular online streaming, he has himself been on the frontline in many demonstrations nationwide, including most recently the protests outside hotels taken over by “asylum seekers”;
– The paid position offered to Kenny; Mark and Laura said that as late as Monday and Tuesday this week, they had made offers to Kenny in an effort to retain his services with PA; however Kenny and some regional organisers appear to have lost confidence in PA’s national leadership.

PA leader Mark Collett has offered to accept any of the dissidents back into PA, but it seems likely that the outcome of these disagreements will be two separate organisations – one mainly focused on traditional politics including election campaigns, and the other working through podcasts, video streams and the like as well as public demonstrations.

In his own response to the PA crisis, also broadcast online to supporters, Kenny Smith emphasised the poor state of PA security when he was appointed and the undoubted fact that he had made dramatic improvements with the vetting policy, even though this was unpopular in some quarters.

Kenny points out that nationalism has become an “online world” where there is “a massive amount of fear”. He sees the vetting policy as an essential step in converting PA’s recruits into real world rather than online activists, and he stresses that this was never a matter of personal ambition or wages, but rather of acquiring the necessary authority to help taking the movement forward.

Part of the dispute within PA’s national leadership seems to be about the speed and scale of that conversion from the Internet to “real life”. On both sides, the proof will be in the extent to which “community politics” manages to put down real world roots, whether in electoral politics or in other forms of action.

H&D wishes both PA and the new Homeland Party well and looks forward to their complementary contributions to the essential cause of racial nationalism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

British patriots unite in anti-immigration protests

While Rishi Sunak’s fake ‘Conservative’ government attempts to repeat the traditional Tory con trick, British patriots have been increasingly active in taking to the streets for real anti-immigration campaigns. Yesterday in Cannock, Staffordshire, Patriotic Alternative held a protest march against the use of hotels and council facilities for illegal immigrants.

Members of other groups including the British Democrats, as well as unaffiliated locals, also attended.

In Cannock, following earlier protests across the UK, the protesters emphasised the difference between genuine refugees and economic migrants. Events have been held in very different parts of the country, ranging from Skegness to Liverpool, united in resistance to a policy that has been imposed on them by treacherous politicians and Whitehall bureaucrats.

As an earlier PA campaign stressed: “We were never asked!”

An especially positive aspect of recent campaigns has been the level of activism in Scotland: increasing numbers of Scots are rejecting the fake, ‘woke’ nationalism of Nicola Sturgeon’s declining SNP. One main focus of the current protests is Erskine, west of Glasgow, where the Home Office has dumped 200 young male asylum seekers in a local hotel. These migrants have no legal documentation and have yet to be vetted.

Understandably, locals are angry at having these illegal immigrants dumped in their midst. Especially in a council area where almost 400 indigenous Scots are registered as homeless.

Protests are taking place every Sunday at 12 noon near the Muthu Glasgow River Hotel, where the illegal migrants are being housed. Any H&D readers able to travel to Erskine are encouraged to attend.

UPDATE: H&D subscriber John Ings, who has been flying the flag for racial nationalism in Devon for many years, reports below on his long-distance trip to support the Cannock demonstration.

The Cannock protest on the 11th of March meant an early start, my alarm set for 0430 hours with a couple of pick-ups and a car change to allow for. 

Once there, the police had arranged with the PA organisers a safe rendezvous site and an en masse march to the protest. Which was welcome as it helped against the cold weather.

It was a combined Patriotic Alternative and concerned locals event to raise the awareness of so-called, asylum seekers being housed in hotels. The eye watering cost to the taxpayers is well known of course, yet the finances are but one piece of the problematic jigsaw open borders cause, and I’m pleased that both the PA and local speakers did address the cultural and numerical aspects as well as the financial burden.

It was to our advantage that the protest was so well organised, as the flag waving PA protesters were able to walk into a charged arena to great applause and cheers from the locals and boos from the mentally-ill, unwashed counter-demonstrators. Who, by the way, seemed confused as to why they were there. Calling for things like “trans rights” for some reason. I’m not so sure the hotel-dwellers would be on the same hymn sheet as them.

It also meant that we could present ourselves as decent, concerned (and clean) people. I believe there were a few local hot-heads, but they were limited to shouting through the police line and were not part of the PA group. It does make me wonder if the authorities will learn a lesson from this and in future deliberately engineer physical confrontation in order to get their MSM anti-white propaganda. They certainly have past form for this tactic.

I never attended past National Front marches when at their peak and although this was not on the same scale, it certainly gave an appreciation of how energising they must have been: it did generate an adrenaline charged atmosphere.

Refreshingly, the locals were not cowed by the name calling by our craven low testosterone antagonists, and even cheered when our speakers mentioned white people’s concerns about the invasion. There was even crowd participation when called upon to respond. 

There’s no doubt that the local support and a lively audience combined with the excellent PA speakers raised this protest to a more effective level.

I think we can gauge the measure of success by the cheers of the locals and that the MSM have ignored it. For me, I was pleased the usually apolitical public were excited and motivated by the protest, and this shows that old fashioned street activity is, as it always has been, the way to win. We just have to keep going and keep our optics positive.

It was a trek back home, but fuelled by pie and chips in the pub, well worth the effort.

Well done to Patriotic Alternative.
John Ings

The limits of ‘free speech’ – PA purged from Twitter (again)

Many nationalists (including H&D) hoped that Elon Musk was being sincere when he promised that his takeover of Twitter would lead to a new approach in favour of ‘free debate’.

Unfortunately, recent decisions show that (after a brief experiment) it’s back to business as usual.

Last night several accounts associated with Patriotic Alternative – including the main PA account as well as Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Sam Melia, and Merseyside activist James Costello – were simultaneously banned for “hateful conduct”.

No one has yet quoted exactly what was posted to Twitter by PA that constituted “hateful conduct”. It seems likely that Twitter has simply panicked in response to a bullying campaign by the far left and the usual interest groups, whose policy on these matters dates back to their successful pressure on the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror during the 1930s to abandon their support for Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

This pressure was primarily via an advertising boycott, notably by large Jewish businesses such as the Lyons Corner Houses, a very well-known chain of tea shops owned by Isidore Salmon.

How should nationalists respond to the latest Twitter bans?

First of all, as in the case of Donald Trump, the message should be: “put not your trust in tycoons”. Billionaires (almost by definition) are not going to be on the side of racial nationalism, even though they might sometimes strike poses that give that impression.

Second, avoid defeatism. There is no “all powerful conspiracy” operating against us. Instead there are many attempts to conspire against us, some more successful than others and some contradicting each other, but all of them ultimately doomed to failure because we stand for truth and civilization.

The British people and other White European peoples are waking up to the need to defend their race and culture. No ban or boycott is going to change that fact. H&D looks forward to Patriotic Alternative continuing to make gigantic contributions to the White European renaissance.

Sunak’s Tories start 2023 in deep trouble – but Reform UK’s challenge is weaker than it looks

Five opinion polls have been taken since Christmas, and all show Rishi Sunak’s government in deep trouble with British voters. Traditionally the Tories might expect to benefit from industrial unrest: strikes famously helped Margaret Thatcher win her first general election in 1979 and weakened Labour in the run-up to her third victory in 1987. But Sunak seems to be failing in his main (political) task of restoring the Conservative Party’s reputation for economic competence.

From H&D readers’ point of view, the big question is whether a civic nationalist party is capable of making the sort of breakthrough that Nigel Farage’s parties achieved during the 2010s: first UKIP, and then the Brexit Party – making such an impact that the Tories were forced to allow British voters a referendum on EU membership in 2016, then forced to deliver Brexit against the wishes of most Tory grandees.

For reasons we have examined repeatedly in the magazine (and which we re-examine in the January-February 2023 edition that has just gone to press) Farage’s latest (and probably last) party, Reform UK, does not seem capable of achieving similar results.

Reform UK (presently led by Farage’s right-hand man Richard Tice) has failed badly at six successive parliamentary by-elections (most recently polling 2.7% in Chester and 3.5% in Stretford & Urmston). None of these lost deposits suggest that its nationwide opinion poll scores (much hyped by some academics and by the GB News channel where Farage has a regular show) are anywhere near accurate.

The most recent polls differ widely in this respect: for example the new company People Polling (commissioned by GB News) gave Reform UK 8%, and showed Sunak’s Tories falling to just 19%, 26 points behind the Labour Party; while a rival firm Redfield Wilton gave Reform UK 5%, but again showed the Tories losing heavily, this time 20 points behind Labour. Three other polls taken during the first week of 2023 show Labour leads of 21% or 22%, with Reform UK scoring anywhere between 4% and 8%.

Part of the explanation for this disparity might be straightforward, involving: (a) prompting of voters with the name of Reform UK included in the initial question, rather than held back for a supplementary question; and (b) a different method of adjusting the raw figures, taking less account of previous voting preference. Most pollsters use this method in an attempt to tease out ‘shy Tories’; if People Polling do not, or use it less radically, it could account for their lower Tory and higher Reform and Green vote shares.

Whatever the technical reason, H&D would be very surprised to see Reform UK poll higher than 2% of the nationwide vote at a general election. For ideological and other reasons, Faragism is finished as a serious political force. If Farage himself stands, then he along with Tice and a handful of others might manage 10% or more and (most crucially) help push the Tories to defeat in a small number of marginal seats, but in most of the country Reform UK will remain an irrelevance.

Which leaves the big question – if not Farage and Reform UK, then who and what will present the badly needed challenge to the UK’s failing political mainstream.

Recent polls suggest that 20% or more of those who voted Conservative at the last general election three years ago are now answering “Don’t Know”. Even the People Polling survey that seems to exaggerate Reform UK’s strength suggests that it is taking 12% of that previous Conservative vote, and little or nothing from the other parties; while 17% of those Tory voters have switched to Labour.

Sunak might yet win back some of those ‘Don’t Knows’, but many of them ought to be persuadable by a credible racial nationalist party (if and when such a party gets off the ground).

The British Democrats presently seem to be the best organised and most realistic option for those seeking a racial nationalist challenge at the ballot box, but even they are only just getting started in most of the country. 2023 will be an important transitional year for our movement, as Faragism is finally buried and the Brit Dems gradually build up a nationwide branch structure. Meanwhile Patriotic Alternative is building a broader political challenge away from the electoral arena (PA is not yet a registered political party and shows no sign of becoming one); the British Movement continues to maintain the core ideology that exposes the roots of British and European decline since 1945; and the National Front keeps the flame alive for the first UK party to present a serious electoral challenge to multiracialism during the 1970s.

Whatever nationalist party or group you belong to, or if for the time being you are working independently for our cause, H&D wishes you an active and successful New Year!

PA activists mark Indigenous People’s Day

Patriotic Alternative activists have been celebrating Indigenous People’s Day with a wide range of activities across the UK, highlighting the threat that fake ‘diversity’ poses to real diversity.

Multiracialism implies the extinction of the White Race. PA activists have been in the front line of mobilising opposition to this ‘Great Replacement’.

An especially excellent activity was held at Clifford’s Tower, a 13th century landmark in York built on the site of an earlier 11th century Norman castle.

One particular ethnic lobby group and their fellow-travellers believe that they ‘own’ Clifford’s Tower. In 1190 about 150 Jews are believed to have killed themselves inside the tower rather than convert to Christianity. Jews had become unpopular at the time because of their moneylending activities, seeing themselves as exempt from the Christian ban on charging interest (‘usury’).

In solidarity with these mediaeval moneylenders, 21st century wokeists and fake leftists are outraged that a patriotic group should have carried out a pro-White activity at Clifford’s Tower.

But if the Great Replacement is to be defeated, Britons will have to rediscover the spirit of their ancestors, defy ‘cancel culture’, and assert our own rights in our own land.

Readers can view a wide range of PA activities and discussions at their Odysee page and on the PA website.

Among today’s other celebrations of White Lives Matter on Indigenous People’s Day, PA activists made their point in locations as diverse as the Tullibardine distillery in Auchterarder – gateway to the Scottish Highlands – and Old Sarum, Wiltshire.

(Tullibardine also brews a ‘whisky beer’ called 1488, so called because it was produced for the coronation of King James IV of Scotland in that year.)

Old Sarum was the most famous of the so-called ‘rotten boroughs’ that elected MPs to the UK Parliament before the 1832 Reform Act. Until that reform, Old Sarum (which had once been a substantial town but now comprised only three houses) elected two MPs, while the fast-growing city of Manchester elected none!

The rottenness of today’s ‘democratic’ system is less obvious but even more toxic: Old Sarum was another ideal venue to make the point that White Lives Matter.

Congratulations to Patriotic Alternative and to all those who are fighting for our cause, not only on Indigenous People’s Day but throughout the year.

Lancaster leftists outraged by democratic discussion

In most parts of the United Kingdom there are campaigns under way for elections to be held on May 5th.

Among the areas that do not have elections this year is Lancaster, but some political activity did take place there last week – and characteristically local politicians are outraged that anyone should dare to exercise their democratic right to a dissenting view.

Members of the pro-White pressure group Patriotic Alternative distributed leaflets in several parts of the city pointing out that on present demographic trends White Britons are set to become a minority in our own country.

Instead of discussing this question rationally – whether by challenging the statistics or by arguing openly that White extinction would be a good thing – local left-wingers complained to the police.

Quite disgracefully, Lancaster Police took it upon themselves to make a political statement that the leaflets were “inflammatory”. Such political debating terms are no business of the police. If there is any question about the leaflets’ legality, there are laws and courts to resolve the matter. We do not yet live in a country where it is acceptable for police officers to bully political campaigners.

Patriotic Alternative is not yet a registered political party, and as stated above there are no elections to Lancaster City Council this year. But when voters in Lancaster next visit the ballot box, they should feel secure that their local police are securing the integrity of the political process, not undermining it by seeking to suppress dissenting voices.

Yorkshire Forum 19th February 2022 – an attendee’s observations

The following is not so much a report on the recent Yorkshire Forum as a personal celebration of those valiant spokesmen.

Yesterday, like the once-true Royal Mail motto – ‘be through rain, hail, or shine we deliver’ – true-grit attendees of the Yorkshire Forum literally skated their vehicles through the snow-iced streets to Bradford for its post-lockdown comeback. There, four patriotic groups gathered. Disdaining all distracting “divide and conquer” factional vanities, these men, women, plus one discreet baby’s political debut(!) brought, foremost, their concern for “Our Home” – our ancestral homeland whose racial survival is turning bleaker and blacker with every alien mass-invaders’ shipload.

The calibre and character of each speaker was equal to his capacity to project a political stance in accessible mode and dignified manner. Handsome, forthright, heartening!

Chairing the gathering was Dr. James Lewthwaite (a Cambridge graduate archaeologist skilled in forensic digging – an asset for a political truth analyst (!); and a proven Bradford vote-winning former Councillor).

Attending were three former BNP Councillors. Guests travelled from far and wide: from London, Mid-Wales, North Wales, Chester, Stoke on Trent, Hull, Wakefield, Leeds and of course Bradford.

Mr. Steve Crosby (from Belfast) spoke first on Direct Democracy. He offered the Swiss model as a stimulus for the British to consider. This veteran community negotiator presented a short video about how Swiss referendum take three forms: 1. popular initiatives, which are citizen proposals to create a new law and require 100,000 valid signatures on a petition to get on the ballot; 2. facultative or optional referendums, which are citizen proposals to approve or reject a piece of existing law and require 50,000 valid signatures on a petition to get on the ballot; and 3. mandatory referendums which are required to revise the Constitution, join an international organisation or introduce emergency federal legislation.

Mr. Crosby’s point was that in this Swiss system its direct seeking of the People’s opinions placed their concerns foremost as opposed to the “Muppets” as he referred to those whom the general public increasingly despise as puppets who, once elected, act as “saboteurs” of a nation’s best interests. The problem remains (I interjected) of how to undermine the enormously funded and powerful Lobbies who monopolise and tyrannise public opinion and education outlets. With twist-speak they knot, mock, and knock the stuffing out of people, not only their well-heeled, toe-cringeing sock-puppets!

As in the nature of a Forum, energised discussion and cordial objections raised from the floor were welcomed by the admirable chairman Dr. James Lewthwaite (of the British Democrats). Mr. Mike Whitby (of British Voice – a platform speaker later but at this time from the floor) advanced the fact that in our ancient Constitution and Common Law we already have such methods which have been “forgotten”. He called for our people to learn more about them and how to deploy these effectively. Dr. Lewthwaite enjoined that such an age-old legal contingency had been available to the BNP’s disgraced former leader Nick Griffin but that despite his legal background, he failed to raise it in a case when it could have re-established a powerful precedent.

Dr. Lewthwaite went on to accredit Mr. Crosby’s magnanimous humility when he stood down during a city council election in order to bolster the chances of a similar interest’s Party, by not splitting the vote. This demonstration of intelligent political coordination for the greater strength gained essentially in a common cause had me unable to contain my applause! A valuable lesson for traditionalist and nationalist Groups who have often lacked interest in coordinating the dates of their events which effectively means patriots take self-defeatingly divisive sides without chance to hear the others!

Mr. Crosby’s rolemodel proved (in my view) the late British philosopher Roger Scruton’s description of “the British genius for compromise”. Mr. Whitby educated one young person from the floor that it’s not a matter of 40-60 years hence when we shall be racially outnumbered but already we are at the 11th hour! This is true at least since Dr. Scruton in 2001 concerning the immigration crisis had declared “Robin Cook wants us to deny our national identity” and that “there is no such race as the British, Robin Cook tells us”; such politicians “they want sovereignty, loyalty, and territory to be things of the past. Their world is one of international bureaucracies, stateless quangos, and rootless elites”. Such a politician could be well-described (by Mr. Crosby) as a “saboteur”.

Alas Britain’s once popular philosopher did not acknowledge the legendary commonsense spoken in 1968 by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell who clarified that “in the early 1950s there were fewer than 100,000 non-whites in Britain”. He spoke up as a true patriot yet was pariahed for this intelligence. By 2001, Dr. Scruton noted that “now we are asked [indeed were NOT asked!] to absorb 100,000 or more [in 2022 more like one million alien invaders] every year, without border controls or any proof of loyalty to, or even respect for the institutions of our country”.

Yet, frankly I must admit that until then the Canadian Free Expression veteran CAFE campaigner and comrade Paul Fromm suggested that at the word “race”, it would have been the case that I’d think he meant the racing at Royal Ascot!! Appalling but true! All this stealthy conquest through immigration I had recognised by 2001 whereby the HQ for World Zionism had “disappeared the indigenous population” in Palestine. Yet this same phenomena had not yet penetrated my otherwise non-political outlook regarding the race replacement in my own Homeland! Why was that? Scruton nailed that elusive public information when he stated “we live in a climate of fear, in which the most important question confronting the British people – the security of their borders and the loyalty within them – is subject to a strict regime of censorship”. I do not recall hearing anything about that eminent influencer daring to embolden the British people to show up at a nationalist Party rally. What a dunce when it counts! This philosopher defines the “problem”, the “threat”, the “loyalty”, yet was a dolt compared to the doughty attendees at the Yorkshire Forum!

Hats off to all those leafleteers who, rain, hail, or shine, delivered their sterling true alert. The “no-kneeling” leaflet by the British Democrats emboldens those inertia-sunk to rise with common sense (phoenix akin the flag-logo of The British Voice) to say: “No to cancel culture and woke tyranny – their agenda is to destroy our cultural heritage and disgrace our historical achievements”.

The historic stall was well set out by the next speaker Mr. Michael Whitby (of The British Voice). He reminded us that the individual’s mind and body is sovereign, not a human right awarded by any government or “the science”. That our national DNA has changed by just over 5% over 12,000 years. And that we can rely when invoking our protective rights, if only we knew to draw on two and a half thousand years of still extant Common Law and Constitution to say respectfully “I don’t consent” when we are not guilty if arrested for a projected thought crime.

Forensic proof is offered in his well-presented leaflets:

The 2006 book Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University, confirmed the result of his team’s ten year study of 50,000 DNA samples from the indigenous British people from all corners of the British Isles. Comparisons were made between those recent samples and that of The Cheddar Man and earlier evidence up to 12,000 years ago.

The results proved that, despite all the claims of “invasions” and that we Britons are a so-called “race of mongrels”, our DNA has only changed by an overall average of just 5% over 12,000 years! The above, added to our peoples proven longevity of 33,000 years, by virtue of ‘The Red “Lady” of Paviland’ (South Wales) proves beyond any doubt that we are amongst the oldest indigenous peoples of the world!

And that we can rely, if only we knew to draw on two and a half thousand years of Common Law to say “No consent” when we are not guilty for a projected thought crime.

The final speaker was Alek Yerbury (from West Yorkshire Region Patriotic Alternative). He amplified how we had “forgotten” that “to unify is unconquerable”, but that “our People who have never been defeated in the last three hundred years can only be tricked into believing they have no power”. His soldierly stance suggested a disciplined approach. I regret we ran out of time before I thought to ask him if he agreed with the Swiss one year’s mandatory military service for every Swiss citizen as highlighted in Mr. Crosby’s talk. To learn to serve in any capacity involving due community service for one’s homeland seems to be an invaluable method to cultivate respect for all labour and levels of contribution to what brings about one’s sense of belonging, sharing and defining us with pride as a grassroots grateful Nation.

The suggestion from Mr. Whitby was a winner for me when he proposed that groups should maintain their identity but that all coordinate together (under a come rain or shine umbrella) called the National Patriot Movement. It’s a now call for the People to stand firm to save themselves from predictable white/black manufactured civil war, coming upon us no longer later – but soon. This mass-manipulation is underway already in our BLM-only life time!

Bravo to the Yorkshire Forum !

No cowering, no surrender,
Michèle, Lady Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com

PS Before closing the meeting, the chairman Dr. Lewthwaite invited me to commemorate those comrades who had passed away last year, Mr. John Bean, Mr. Kevin Stafford, Mr. Richard Edmonds and others.

I knew Richard Edmonds very well as a hero to both his British and German comrades who always honoured our finest historian Mr. David Irving. With his facility in German, Richard frequently cited his hero when giving speeches at rallies and at German memorials for their soldiers and civilians.

A former school teacher, qualified engineer, and strenuous historical revisionist, this prize-winning orator always stressed that not all Britons during the world wars were duped. The British People were misled by warmonger Winston Churchill – the drunken traitor and neurotic anti-“Hun” who kept from public knowledge all of Germany’s genuine peace offerings which would have ended (and never begun) the senseless killing off of our best and bravest on both sides of this Anglo-Saxon brothers’ war. “Allies = All lies” was wit-and-pith Richard’s apt refrain!

Two days before our national treasure died on 23rd December 2020, he had translated a Yuletide poem written by Berlin attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath (who so successfully defended me and British honour in Dresden). When I mentioned this translation to Attorney Nahrath he texted: “An honour for me”. In turn Richard was deeply gratified at this mutual respect from Germany’s foremost defender of persecuted real history champions. I believe our British lion died, not mehling about cats-paw anti-gentiles, but with his magnificent race and nation foremost on his mind. Richard Edmonds, our great nationalist role-model, scholar and gentleman lives on in treasured legend.

Long Live the British grace and character of Richard Edmonds!

Many thanks to Mr Tony Avery for photographs – H&D understands that a video of the event will in due course be available and we shall post a link

Yorkshire Forum – Saturday 19th February

All H&D readers in the area should try their best to attend the 14th Yorkshire Forum meeting, to be held on Saturday 19th February in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

All genuine nationalists, identitarians and traditionalists are welcome.

Programme as follows:

Chairman’s introduction:
Remembering recently passed comrades Richard Edmonds, Kevin Stafford, John Bean and others.

Followed by main speakers:

Steve Crosby on Direct Democracy

Mike Whitby of British Voice

Jim Lewthwaite of the British Democrats

Alek from West Yorkshire Region Patriotic Alternative

A post-meeting social will be held at a nearby traditional Yorkshire pub

Buffet and raffle are included in the entrance fee of £10.00.
Free entrance is available to guest speakers in addition to attendees aged 25 and under.
Speakers’ travelling expenses will be subsidised.

Yorkshire Forum is always on the lookout for new speakers. Got something to say? Then contact us!

For more information, contact Liam on the following telephone numbers;

(01274) 604358 Land line
(07876) 383636 Mobile

Congratulations to Laura and Sam!

Excellent Yuletide news on Monday afternoon: baby Catherine was born to Laura and Sam Melia (deputy leader and Yorkshire regional organiser of Patriotic Alternative).

Many Twitter accounts associated with PA have been removed, but you can catch up with the good news on the Gab account below:

https://gab.com/thisislaurat/posts/107524511938538358

If our mental arithmetic is correct, baby Catherine was already part of the team as an embryonic activist when Laura and Sam visited the H&D offices in April and leafleted with our editor Mark Cotterill for his Preston City Council campaign!

Congratulations to Laura and Sam from all at H&D. With PA leader Mark Collett’s daughter having just celebrated her third Christmas, we can expect the mainstream media soon to expose a new threat from the Patriotic Baby Squad.

But following their inventive reporting of October’s PA conference in the Lake District, perhaps Hope not Hate will reassure anxious anti-fascists that these patriotic babies don’t actually exist, and are merely some sort of trick worked with holograms and Photoshop.

Next Page »