The chaotic truth about Irish ‘nationalism’

On 7th June the Republic of Ireland will have local council elections as well as electing the fourteen Irish members of the European Parliament. Will some form of racial nationalism prove stronger in Ireland than it was in last week’s English local elections?

As regular H&D readers will know, racial nationalist politics in England is struggling to recover from damage inflicted more than a decade ago. This weakness was reflected in last week’s council contests.

Online racial nationalist commentators have become very excited in recent months about Irish resistance to mass immigration and ‘wokeism’, especially after recent demonstrations in central Dublin; the decisive defeat in referendums on 8th March of two attempts to liberalise the Irish constitution in the direction of feminism and ‘LGBT’ rights; and anti-immigration riots in Dublin last November.

Close examination of political reality, however, suggests that these commentators have vastly overrated racial nationalism in Ireland, and that in fact our movement on the other side of the Irish Sea (whether broadly defined as anti-immigration, anti-woke and socially conservative, or narrowly defined as racial nationalist) is organisationally and electorally weaker even than the movement in England.

When it comes to the electoral side of politics, racial nationalists in 2024 tend to have only a childish level of understanding, partly because a generation has grown up informed by online speculation rather than experience.

A bus burning during the November 2023 Dublin riots

This gets worse when overseas observers look at the UK and Ireland, for several reasons. One is the Anglophobia which colours many overseas perspectives on the Irish question, especially in Catholic countries and/or among a generation of 21st century ‘nationalists’ who think in ‘Third Worldist’ or ‘anti-imperialist’ terms, and for whom the Irish are lionised as heroes of an anti-imperialist, anti-British struggle.

Another problem is that racial nationalists persistently overrate street demonstrations. Racial nationalists will tend to get more excited by a group marching down the street with banners, or shouting in a city centre, or even throwing petrol bombs, than by a political party building support with a properly organised branch structure nationwide, or engaging in serious ideological training of its cadres.

Partly this is due to learning the wrong lessons from a Hollywood version of national socialism. And partly it’s because (for younger movement activists especially) politics conducted in the style of football hooliganism is more exciting than educating themselves ideologically, attending meetings, and building support among the general public.

Therefore both the English Defence League and assorted anti-vaccination campaigns attracted support from racial nationalists, even though their respective causes were ideologically confused (at best), and despite the style of their activism being counter-productive and off-putting to the vast majority of Britons.

Perceptions of Irish anti-immigration politics are similarly unrealistic. What is actually happening in the southern portion of the Emerald Isle?

The headquarters of Aontú, which is probably the most signficant of the ‘right wing’ parties standing in the Irish elections, though it is much more a socially conservative party than a racial nationalist party.

Nominations have now closed for the European elections, and though there is another week before local council nominations close, most parties have announced their candidates.

At the European election Ireland is divided into three giant constituencies, using the Single Transferable Vote method, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference (and to choose between the candidates offered by each party rather than accepting the priority listed by the party).

Dublin elects four MEPs, and the other two regions (Midlands/NW and South) five each. In practice STV means that a winning candidate needs both a fairly solid level of first preference support, and a certain level of appeal to supporters of rival candidates giving their second preferences, etc.

The positive aspect of this system for any well-organised anti-immigration party is that there is no such thing as a ‘wasted vote’ under STV, so really there is no excuse for the ‘right’ not to poll its maximum vote.

In Dublin this year there will be no fewer than eight rival slates standing for varying types of anti-immigration policies and social conservatism.

Some of these are old-fashioned Catholic reactionaries, emphasising an anti-abortion and anti-LGBT agenda, but also including aspects of anti-immigration politics. Others are closer to Reform UK and are linked to opposing the European Union (though calls for ‘Irexit’ remain quite marginal). And one or two are something resembling a racial nationalist movement, but divisions within that scene are even more bitter and intense than anything we see in the UK.

For example the closest thing to a racial nationalist party in Ireland used to be the National Party, but this has split into two factions, each of which seek to use the party name, and each of which are standing in Dublin, both for the European Parliament and in the city council elections.

The hostility between the two National Party factions has descended to a tragi-comic level, with the rival leaders engaged in legal battles over ownership of a stock of gold bars stored in an Irish bank vault. The farcical situation can be seen in the video above where Justin Barrett (leader of one faction) attacks his rival James Reynolds.

A third faction (which includes some former National Party members) has formed the Ireland First party, whose leader is a noted Putinist and whose Dublin candidate was a prominent anti-vaccination campaigner.

Anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists are also involved in a fourth group calling itself ‘The Irish People’. Their Dublin candidate Andy Heasman was involved in the recent anti-immigration demonstration, but so were representatives of other factions, including several who will be rivalling Heasman on the European ballot paper next month.

Independent Ireland – a social conservative party that has been involved in anti-abortion activism – is also on the ballot, as is the larger social conservative party Aontú which has had candidates in both the Republic and Northern Ireland (though of course Northern Ireland like the rest of the UK is no longer part of the European Union so has no elections on 7th June).

Farage-style, anti-EU politics is represented on the ballot by the Irish Freedom Party.

And last but (in his own eyes) not least, is independent candidate Malachy Steenson, a veteran leftwinger who has reinvented himself as a populist conservative and anti-abortion activist. Steenson was once a leading activist in Republican Sinn Féin, political wing of the terrorist splinter group ‘Continuity IRA’.

Malachy Steenson, now a ‘right-wing’ independent candidate, has formerly stood for the Workers Party – the Marxist political wing of the old ‘Official IRA’ – and more recently was active in ‘Republican Sinn Féin’, political wing of the terrorist ‘Continuity IRA’.

Similar patterns are repeated in the other two constituencies. In the Midlands/NW constituency the two rival ‘leaders’ of the factions who each claim the name ‘National Party’ (Justin Barrett and James Reynolds) are standing against each other. The leader of Aontú, Peadar Tóibin, is also on the ballot paper in Midlands/NW, as are candidates from ‘The Irish People’, ‘Independent Ireland’, and ‘Ireland First’.

A fourth ‘right-wing’ party leader is also on the ballot in the Midlands/NW constituency: Nigel Farage’s Irish ally Hermann Kelly, leader of the Irish Freedom Party.

In the South constituency several of the right-wing parties are again present, with the exception of the National Party, neither of whose factions are standing. Also on the ballot in the South is the barrister Michael McNamara, who was one of the leaders of the winning ‘No’ campaign against the proposed feminist and LGBT constitutional changes in this year’s referendum. McNamara is already a member of the Dublin Parliament.

At the previous European Election in Dublin the Greens won most first preferences – 17.5%. Then the two old parties (Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil) in second and third. The far-left Independents for Change polled 11.6%, ahead of Sinn Féin.

Eventually the Sinn Féin second preferences split very heavily in favour of Independents for Change, pushing them ahead of Fianna Fáil into third place.

Ultra-left ‘Independents for Change’ MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace (seen above visiting Iraq in 2021) have become discredited by their pro-Moscow views and are unlikely to be re-elected next month.

Because of their extreme Putinism, I very much doubt Independents for Change will poll as well this time. A lot of their vote will go instead to the Trotskyist party, People Before Profit, or back to Sinn Féin.

The ‘shock’ for H&D readers (and for racial nationalists worldwide who entertain delusions about the strength of racial nationalism in Ireland) will be that despite all the demonstrations, riots, and online noise, Sinn Féin’s vote will increase in June, compared to the last Euro election in 2019.

Readers can probably perceive what a shambles this is. In theory STV would allow all of these ‘right wing’ votes to transfer eventually to the strongest candidate/party (which would almost certainly be Aontú), but it’s more likely to end up a total failure and a triumph for the establishment parties, with the most substantial challenge to the political elite coming from the far left rather than from the broadly defined ‘right’.

At local level, ‘Independent Ireland’ are defending thirteen seats – former independent or Fianna Fáil councillors who defected to the new party mostly in rural areas. As with the European seats (though of course on a smaller scale) local councillors in Ireland are elected in multi-member LEAs using the STV system, which unlike the English first-past-the-post system means that smaller parties (including the ‘far right’) do not have to combat the ‘wasted vote’ argument.

But given the chaos outlined above, it would be unrealistic to expect any significant breakthrough even at local council level for any of the tiny, disorganised and squabbling anti-immigration factions.

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.

Jeremy Corbyn – the terrorists’ friend – attacks H&D and Isabel Peralta

Jeremy Corbyn’s letter to the Home Secretary, calling for bans on H&D and Isabel Peralta

[The following article has also been published in Spanish – please click here for the Spanish translation.]

Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has launched an extraordinary attack on Heritage and Destiny, calling for our meetings to be banned. In a letter to Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Corbyn has targeted our European correspondent Isabel Peralta, demanding that she should be refused entry to the United Kingdom.

Isabel has never been convicted of any crime, but has twice been detained and questioned by UK Border Force, abusing their powers under the Terrorism Act.

Anyone interested in real terrorism should be looking not at Heritage & Destiny and Isabel Peralta, but at the close allies of Jeremy Corbyn, who has for decades been known as terrorism’s best friend in Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn with IRA godfather Gerry Adams, who has been one of Corbyn’s closest friends and allies for decades.

From 1985 to 1989 Corbyn was national secretary and later president of the notoriously violent group Anti-Fascist Action. AFA’s terrorist core – Red Action – held its meetings in Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, north London, and provided security for Corbyn and for one of his closest political allies, IRA godfather Gerry Adams.

Even Corbyn’s own party has often been embarrassed by his especially close ties to the IRA. In 1984 Corbyn was reprimanded by Labour’s chief whip for taking IRA terrorists on a tour of Parliament. In 1987 Corbyn tried to appoint a notorious Irish republican sympathiser and anarchist, Ronan Bennett, as his parliamentary research assistant, but the authorities refused on security grounds to give Bennett a House of Commons pass.

Two of Corbyn’s comrades in Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action – Patrick Hayes (AFA London organiser) and Jan Taylor – were given long jail sentences for bombing the Harrods store in London on behalf of the IRA. Their fellow AFA activist, Liam Heffernan, was jailed for stealing explosives on behalf of another republican terrorist gang, the INLA.

Anti-Fascist Action’s London organiser was jailed for bombing Harrods. Patrick Hayes and his inner circle of violent “anti-fascists” regularly held meetings in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency office.

A senior police officer later told the Sunday Times that Corbyn “knew they were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them”.

There has never been any suggestion that Corbyn was personally involved in specific acts of terrorism, but for decades police and security services monitored his close connections with terrorists and their active supporters. They were especially concerned that terrorists invited into Westminster premises by Corbyn had been able to familiarise themselves with the layout and security of the Houses of Parliament.

In 1985, Corbyn was the keynote speaker at Red Action’s national meeting. He maintained close ties for years to Red Action, a group whose journal openly stated: “both as an organisation and as individuals we support the activities of the Provisional IRA and the INLA unconditionally and uncritically.”

Some of the paymasters of “anti-fascism” will be embarrassed by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is now championing their cause. In addition to his support for the IRA, Corbyn has frequently been accused of “anti-semitism”, for example over his praise for a mural that promoted allegedly “anti-semitic tropes”.

H&D has been contacted by several Londoners appalled by Corbyn’s consistent association with terrorists and their propagandists. We have been offered premises in Corbyn’s Islington constituency to hold our next meeting, and we are discussing several options for this event.

Unlike Jeremy Corbyn’s murderous friends and allies, Isabel Peralta – the young Spanish activist whom Corbyn has so disgracefully targeted – has never committed any offence against UK law. In reply to Corbyn’s attack, Isabel writes:
“I honestly find it hard to believe that my mere presence in a country is so dangerous that even one of the main English politicians, former leader of the second-largest political force in England, writes to the Home Secretary asking for me to be banned. I find it difficult to believe that someone who has not committed any crime and has never been convicted is ostracised or exiled from several European countries. But it is like this. Our fanaticism moves mountains and our enemies have more faith in our triumph than we do ourselves.

“One does not fear a madman, one does not take seriously a merely anachronistic or atavistic enemy. There is fear of a revolution. We are a revolution, a living, organic idea, destined to be proudly implemented throughout Europe.”

Let there be no doubt: H&D will continue to expose the truth about Jeremy Corbyn and his crazed Marxist and Irish Republican friends. We shall continue to fight for the true Europe. And we shall contest (at whatever level proves necessary) any attempt to intimidate or exclude our comrade and European correspondent Isabel Peralta.

For further information on “Who are the real terrorists?” click here to read an article by H&D’s assistant editor.

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.

Historic RAF site to be demolished for ‘refugee centre’: will Gary Lineker intervene?

During the past week, BBC presenter Gary Lineker has deployed wartime rhetoric to condemn government policy on immigration. He suggests that ‘asylum seekers’ are similar to refugees from 1930s Europe. As with so many liberal arguments in favour of immigrants, all the usual ‘anti-Nazi’ rhetoric is mobilised. Lineker suggests that Britain’s ‘heroic’ wartime record implies that we must roll out the welcome mat for those disembarking on our coast daily in small boats.

Yet a story has since emerged that might give even Lineker pause for thought.

RAF Scampton is one of Britain’s most historic wartime sites. In May 1943 Wing Commander Guy Gibson and his 617 Squadron led the famous ‘Dambusters raid’ from this airfield. In recent years it has been used as a base for the Red Arrows, the RAF’s aerobatic team.

617 Squadron mascot ‘Nigger’, with one of the first Lancasters issued to Bomber Command

A £300m deal had been agreed with the local council earlier this year that would preserve a museum at Scampton, restore the Officers’ Mess into a hotel, and provide 1,000 jobs to local residents.

All of this has now been scrapped on the orders of the Home Office, so that Scampton can be turned into a refugee centre to house asylum seekers.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman is keen to make propaganda about immigration, hoping that the Conservative Party can again deceive British voters. Yet it is her department that is committing this vandalism at Scampton, destroying listed buildings and riding roughshod over British heritage.

Can we expect any word on Twitter from Gary Lineker about this issue?

The gravestone of Guy Gibson’s dog ‘Nigger’, as featured in the Dambusters film, was destroyed in 2021 on government orders

RAF Scampton was of course also the home of Wing Commander Guy Gibson’s famous dog ‘Nigger’, whose name has been removed by censors from all recent broadcasts of The Dambusters film. Even YouTube now restricts a video featuring this famous dog!

Nigger featured in the film partly because of the coincidence that the dog (a much loved mascot of 617 Squadron) was killed in a car accident on the very night of the Dambusters raid: he was buried at midnight as his owner was en route to Germany. Nigger is buried at RAF Scampton, but in 2021 following ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests, his original gravestone was destroyed. Paying tribute to the black American criminal George Floyd was judged more important than Britain’s own wartime history.

Gary Lineker and immigration hypocrisy

Gary Lineker (above centre) with his multiracial line-up of colleagues fronting BBC football coverage (left to right) Jermaine Jenas, Ian Wright, Alan Shearer, and Alex Scott.

This weekend the British government, our national broadcaster, and our national sport have been caught up in a hypocritical circus over immigration. Television’s best known sports programme – Match of the Day – and many other football programmes have been severely disrupted.

Gary Lineker, the former England international who has presented Match of the Day since 1999, has been increasingly vocal in his left-liberal political views during recent years, especially regarding ‘racism’ and immigration.

In effect, Lineker is only taking to its logical conclusion an obsession with ‘anti-racism’ that has been forced on football. Ever since the start of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaigns, paying tribute to the black American criminal George Floyd, Premiership football teams (and especially the England team) have religiously ‘taken the knee’.

So it probably seemed to Lineker that he was merely being consistent when he criticised the British government’s new, supposedly ‘tough’, immigration policy. In doing so he made an obligatory reference to ‘1930s Germany’. (No one imagines that Lineker, who left school at 16 and has shown no sign of being especially studious since then, has any advanced knowledge of Third Reich history! He was merely parroting the usual left-liberal slogans.)

What Lineker didn’t realise is that the UK’s Tory government under Rishi Sunak – son of immigrants and married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – aims to play its usual hypocritical games over immigration. These games have been typical of the Conservative Party ever since its then leader Margaret Thatcher played a con trick on British voters in January 1978, hinting that she shared their concerns about our nation being “swamped” by immigrants.

‘British’ Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (above right) with his wife and her parents.

Today’s Tories aim to be ‘anti-racist’ in practice – presiding over an increasingly emasculated police force, housing illegal immigrants in hotels across the UK at public expense, and extending the definition of ‘harmful extremism’ and even ‘terrorism’ so as to harass active patriots – but also seek to deploy ‘dog whistle’ tactics by sending signals to racially concerned voters that really they are on their side (or at any rate are more pro-White than the Labour Party).

It seems odd to describe Lineker – one of the country’s best paid broadcasters – as a victim: but to an extent he has at least tried to be consistent, and as a man of limited education he is probably genuinely mystified by the hypocrisy of his employers and the governing party.

Those liberals who defend Lineker’s right to “free speech” are unlikely to extend the same right to nationalists such as PA’s Dylan Tonkiss.

Most H&D readers are likely to agree that Lineker is entitled to his own opinions. We would not object to people with whom we happen to disagree politically, being allowed to present sports programmes – provided that this latitude is applied consistently. If someone with strong, publicly-expressed, pro-immigration views is allowed to present Match of the Day, then the same should apply to those who express strong anti-immigration views.

Sadly this is not the case. Anyone of even mildly nationalist views faces a witchhunt to remove them from public life. This weekend The Times – once the world’s most respected newspaper – harassed a prominent businessman because of views expressed by his son, not even by the businessman himself! To be vocally anti-immigration is to risk not only demonisation and marginalisation, but even criminalisation.

England captain Harry Kane (above left) leads his teammates in ‘taking the knee’ in tribute to career criminal George Floyd. Note also Kane’s rainbow armband.

Polling evidence on racial questions is very difficult to analyse, because much depends on how the questions are phrased, and the general public are sometimes unwilling to associate publicly with any position that is deemed ‘extreme’.

But there is increasing evidence that large numbers of voters have had enough. If and when racial nationalists can get their act together, it seems clear that there is huge potential support for a movement of national resistance, whether at the ballot box or on the streets. H&D looks forward to reporting on the growth of this national resistance in the coming weeks and months.

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

Home Secretary plays the ‘Holocaust’ card in migrant row

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has played the ‘Holocaust card’ in defending her immigration policies.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been the first to play the victim card in an ongoing row with the BBC over the UK government’s immigration policy.

Speaking to Nick Robinson’s podcast Political Thinking this morning, Braverman (who is herself a Buddhist of Goanese ancestry) said that she had been “personally offended” by the comments of Gary Lineker, the former England footballer who has been presenter of Match of the Day for more than twenty years.

Braverman added:
“My husband is Jewish, my children are therefore directly descendant from people who were murdered in gas chambers during the Holocaust. And my husband’s family is very – feels very – keenly the impact of the Holocaust, actually.”

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker

Lineker, one of the highest-paid broadcasters in Britain, has repeatedly expressed politically-correct views on Twitter and recently criticised the government’s immigration policies. Replying to an opponent this week, Lineker tweeted:
“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

Predictably the row has degenerated into both sides playing the ‘nazi’ card, and Braverman clearly feels that her tangential connection to the ‘Holocaust’ gives her some advantage in the victim stakes.

Lineker’s comments were stupid and should be criticised for their foolishness, not because they might offend someone married to a Jew.

The underlying point of course is that St Gary is another symptom of the crude political correctness that can be expected from the football industry after several decades of relentless ‘anti-racist’ indoctrination.

Ron Atkinson – former manager of West Brom, Manchester United, Atletico Madrid, and Aston Villa – is among several well-known broadcasters whose careers were swfitly ended because of politically incorrect comments (in Atkinson’s case made in private).

In earlier generations, ‘racism’ when expressed by people within football was inevitably crudified, and so is ‘anti-racism’. No big deal either way, and not grounds for sacking – provided that (within reason) football commentators are also allowed to express anti-immigration sentiments. Provided it is not obligatory to kneel in memory of black criminal George Floyd, and provided it is permissible for BBC broadcasters to assert that White Lives Matter, none of us should be too worried about Lineker and his ilk expressing their opinions.

The problem is that only one side of the political fence is considered acceptable.

Perhaps the case should be put to Mr Lineker in those terms, and that would I think silence him rather more effectively than attempts at straightforward censorship!

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.

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.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers