Madrid counts blessings of “democracy” and “diversity” amid immigrant crime wave

Forty-one years ago today – on 23rd February 1981 – Lt. Col. Antonio Tejero of Spain’s Guardia Civil made a last stand against the presumed benefits of ‘democratic’ party politics when he stormed Madrid’s parliament – the Cortes – as part of an attempted military coup by forces loyal to the memory of Spain’s anti-communist leader Gen. Francisco Franco, who had died more than five years earlier.

When H&D‘s assistant editor first visited Madrid for nationalist events in the 1990s, Tejero was still in prison – in fact our delegation (from the Tyndall-era BNP) attended a ‘Tejero Libertad’ rally in central Madrid, which drew a vast crowd.

Today many of us would take a more nuanced view of the Franco years – for a critical analysis of some aspects see Peter Rushton’s H&D article ‘The Cavalry of St George’ – but there can be little doubt that Tejero (who will be 90 in a few weeks time) has seen many of his warnings justified in the past four decades – about democratic corruption and the socially corrosive effects of liberalism.

Even the mainstream media can no longer avoid the epidemic of violent crime on Madrid’s streets, carried out by increasingly notorious immigrant gangs, many of whom originate from the Dominican Republic.

Unlike London, Madrid’s local government is controlled by nominal ‘conservatives’ of the Partido Popular, but the PP’s regional leader recently indicated the bankruptcy of her entire ideological tradition when she protested that the gangs should not be described as alien: “These ‘Latin’ gangs are second-generation immigrants, as Spanish.. as you or I.”

A dog born in a stable does not become a horse – even if its parents were also born in a stable!

One effect of the crime spiral has been to boost support for the nationalist youth group Bastión Frontal, who held an anti-gang protest outside Madrid’s government offices last Friday.

Bastión Frontal leader Isabel Peralta told demonstrators that they should object to the criminals being labelled ‘Latin gangs’. These gangsters are not the descendants of Julius Caesar or Trajan! Bastión Frontal and their fellow Spaniards are the true descendants of the Roman heroes of antiquity, the true claimants to the Latin heritage at the heart of European civilisation.

Left wing activists and journalists are increasingly frightened by the growth of Bastión Frontal, which has just expanded into new branches including the Navarre region.

So much so that the media are playing their usual game of searching for isolated incidents of non-political misconduct by anyone linked to the group, and desperately trying to smear the entire organisation. The typical tactics of opponents who know that they can no longer rely on political argument. If the benefits of ‘diversity’ and ‘democracy’ were so obvious, the media and the left would be able to base their arguments on those benefits – but instead they have to search for discreditable conduct by occasional individuals on our own side.

Bastión Frontal is from a different ideological tradition to many Franco supporters – they look for inspiration not to the late Caudillo but to the socially-conscious Falangism of José Antonio Primo de Rivera and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos.

Isabel Peralta – the brightest star of a new generation of European nationalists – will soon be writing for H&D to explain the differences between this tradition and that of the reactionary, UKIP-style right that is temporarily attracting votes of many Spaniards disgusted by the two-party system.

Happy New Year to all our readers – 2022 presents an open goal for nationalists

All at H&D wish our readers (whether online, in print, or preferably both!) a very happy new year in 2022.

In this week’s Spectator, former UKIP MEP Patrick O’Flynn points out that the present ‘Conservative’ government is failing to take advantage of the opposition Labour Party’s extremist pro-immigration policy.

He writes: “The Labour party’s bizarre attitude towards immigration policy ought to render it utterly incapable of depriving the Conservatives of a parliamentary majority. And yet the Conservatives are conspiring to undermine rather than underline their own natural advantage on this crucial issue.”

And adds: “pretty much all the Conservatives need to do is make a good fist of immigration control and they can cement in place their winning electoral coalition of traditionalist shire Tories and working class Red Wallers.”

Yet they fail to do so, and this failure is a repeat of exactly what the Tories (and their transatlantic equivalents, sometimes referred to as ‘Republicans in Name Only’ or RINOs) have been doing for decades.

As we have documented in previous H&D analyses, the Tories have repeatedly talked tough about immigration, then once in office continued to steer the ship of state onto the rocks of multiracialism.

This situation ought to be an open goal not so much for the Conservative Party (who are in some ways more responsible than Labour for our present situation, having been in power for 46 of the 76 years since the Second World War) as for racial nationalists.

Will 2022 be the year in which British racial nationalism gets its act together?

Future issues of H&D will debate the way forward.

Anti-immigration party runner-up in German regional election

The anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland – AfD) again finished runner-up in regional elections today for the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt, a Land that includes Martin Luther’s home town of Wittenberg as well as larger cities such as Magdeburg and Halle.

This was the last regional contest before Germany’s federal election in September, and was seen as an important test for Armin Laschet, the new leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party CDU. (Merkel will retire in September after sixteen years as Chancellor.)

Saxony-Anhalt has been one of AfD’s strongest regions as many eastern voters reacted strongly against Merkel’s pro-asylum seeker policies. At the previous state election in 2016, AfD polled 24.3% – only just behind the CDU’s 29.8% – and there had been speculation that this year they might even take first place.

However Sunday’s election showed that (as in several other regions) AfD has failed to make further advances, and in fact has slipped back slightly. The CDU massively extended its lead polling 37.1%, with AfD slightly down to 20.8%. AfD’s regional leader Oliver Kirchner lost the Magdeburg constituency that he had won in 2016, but for reasons related to the electoral system AfD has only one seat fewer in the new Landtag (which has 97 members rather than 87 in the old Landtag).

Up until last March every opinion poll (and several regional and European elections) showed AfD making further advances, but across the country they have been in decline (to a greater or lesser extent) for about fifteen months.

The reason seems to be that for more than a year AfD (in common with many other parties, movements and individuals in the broad pro-White movement nationwide) has allowed itself to be distracted by anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination campaigns.

While supported by a noisy minority, these have proved a turn-off for the vast majority of voters, including much of AfD’s natural support. There is already an obvious electoral home for those broadly libertarian voters whose political priority is resentment of lockdown: across Germany there have been modest increases in support for the socially and economically liberal Free Democrats (FDP), who fell below the 5% threshold in 2016 but returned to the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag this week with 6.4% (up 1.5%).

The good news is that the underlying issues relating to German nationhood and the threat of mass immigration/asylum (towards which the liberal FDP have precisely the wrong policies) have not gone away: AfD is the only major party that can represent millions of Germans concerned about these issues – and it should refocus as soon as possible on these core issues.

Ever since AfD’s rise it has taken more or less all of the votes previously won by the explicitly racial nationalist party NPD, which polled just 0.3% in today’s election, down from 1.9% in 2016, whereas back in 2011 with 4.6% the NPD were close to electing members to the Saxony-Anhalt regional parliament (Landtag), and did win Landtag seats in neighbouring Saxony in 2004 and 2009.

Italy heads for ‘post-fascist’ coalition

Matteo Salvini – the leading anti-immigration politician in Europe – is set to realign Italian politics with a new, ‘post-fascist’ coalition.

As interior minister and deputy prime minister in the present Italian government, Salvini has already pursued radical and highly popular policies to protect Italy from tides of immigrants crossing the Mediterranean.

However – as H&D has consistently argued – the coalition between his Lega party and the anti-establishment (but essentially liberal) Five Star Movement was always incoherent and unlikely to last.

Though it is obvious that Salvini is now deliberately looking for an excuse to break up the coalition, this should be seen not as an unscrupulous bid for personal power, but as an attempt to create a more ideologically stable coalition, probably with the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) party, one of several movements that grew out of the postwar fascist party MSI.

Fratelli and their leader Giorgia Meloni have for several years been allied to the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament, an inconvenient fact that doesn’t get mentioned in the alarmist analysis published today in the Sunday Telegraph.

Nevertheless a Lega-Fratelli alliance would be a bold challenge to the postwar European consensus, and would probably succeed in winning a solid majority for an explicitly anti-immigration, pro-White government, whenever new Italian elections are held.

The biggest short-term problem is that Italy’s constitution allows all sorts of delays which might involve the President appointing a ‘centrist’ government that could hold power for many months without elections.

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(by James Knight for H&D)

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

 

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

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

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demographic Realities

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

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

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

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

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

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

Illegal immigrant ‘army’ arriving in UK every year

A new report reveals that the illegal immigrant population of the UK is rising by 70,000 each year – equivalent to the size of the British Army – and contributing to a steadily increasing total which has now reached more than a million.

More than 105,000 illegal immigrants turn up each year, with only about 35,000 leaving the country each year as our grossly overstretched border forces struggle to cope. This means a net annual increase of around 70,000.

Police forces have been heavily brainwashed by political correctness, and simultaneously suffer from inadequate training in how to enforce immigration law. Moreover the National Crime Agency reported in May this year that “corrupt public and private sector workers” were helping gangs to facilitate illegal immigration. Small seaports around our coastline are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by immigration racketeers.

Think tank Migration Watch urgently recommends that “funding for immigration enforcement should be boosted by around £100 million. There should also be a major boost in the amount of support and training provided to HO staff.” Migration Watch also warns that “attempts to ‘weaponise’ the Windrush issue in order to destroy sensible border controls should be firmly rejected”.

 

 

 

 

The real victims of Windrush

The (Dis-)United Kingdom has its first Asian Home Secretary, after the appointment of Rochdale-born Pakistani Sajid Javid this morning.

This follows last night’s political drama, when Amber Rudd resigned – not because of the epidemic of knife crime. not because of the uncontrolled flood of illegal immigration, but because of the technical ‘offence’ of misleading parliament in the massively hyped Windrush ‘scandal’.

The true scandal of course is that (beginning with the arrival of the former troopship Empire Windrush in 1948) British towns and cities were transformed into multiracial environments – without British voters having any say in the matter.

Yet for the last few days British ministers have been falling over themselves to apologise, not to several generations of our own people whose interests were betrayed, but to a handful of Jamaican immigrants who couldn’t be bothered to obtain proper documentation (such as a UK passport) at any time in the last few decades, so now find themselves unable to prove their legal right of residence.

The technical issue that forced Amber Rudd’s resignation was her department’s ‘target’ for deportations.  Sensible Britons are baffled as to why there should be any question of delay in deporting illegal immigrants: but the media and Westminster insiders are constantly cringing before the pro-immigration lobby. Ms Rudd was questioned in front of a parliamentary committee last week and denied that the Home Office had any deportation target.  Then on Saturday a leaked letter from 2017 showed Ms Rudd informing the Prime Minister of her intention to increase the deportation target by 10%.

Aside from the historic betrayals over seventy years since the arrival of the Windrush, Theresa May’s government needs to get a grip over continuing immigration from outside the EU, presently totalling more than 200,000 each year, the equivalent of a city the size of York.

As immigration expert and former ambassador Lord Green wrote a few weeks ago, Home Secretary Amber Rudd “has shown no interest at all in concrete steps to reduce immigration. That may be because, as an economic liberal, she is sympathetic to the pre-emptive cries of alarm from industry. But employers’ claims that a reduction in immigration for lower-paid work would harm the economy are simply not supported by the evidence. Indeed, large inflows of cheap labour may have hindered productivity growth, while they have certainly disincentivised training of UK workers by employers. Meanwhile, in 2014/15, the working age benefit bill for EU migrants in the UK was over £4 billion or about £12 million per day – a huge sum.”

Will Sajid Javid – himself the son of a Pakistani immigrant – be likely to respond to the justified concerns of Lord Green, and the clearly expressed views of most British voters on immigration? H&D will be watching our new Home Secretary, but we shall not be holding our breath in anticipation of a new immigration policy, or even a serious implementation of existing policy!

Anti-immigration party’s new gains in German capital

The anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD) – which has only existed since 2013 – has won seats for the first time in the regional parliament of the German capital Berlin, polling 14.2%.

This continues a remarkable run of gains for AfD, most notably earlier this month when it pushed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU into third place in the north-eastern region of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Berlin was always going to be much tougher territory for AfD, so 14.2% here is a very great achievement, even though the party is in fifth place behind the socialist SPD, the CDU, Greens and far-left Die Linke (Left Party). Western Europe’s capital cities are all more left-wing than the rest of their countries, with higher ethnic minority populations: Berlin in particular has a strong left-wing element dating back to the early 20th century.

In the long term perhaps the most significant aspect is that the so-called “grand coalition” – a deal between SPD and CDU (similar to a Labour-Tory pact) – lost so many votes that it will no longer be able to govern the Berlin region.

The SPD (who remained in first place with a reduced vote of 21.6%) will probably now seek a new alliance in Berlin’s regional parliament with the Greens and the Left Party.  In the long term this is very good news for AfD, as it heralds a more honest politics that could undermine Merkel’s coalition with the SPD at national level.

For the first time, a window of opportunity is visible for AfD to achieve some share of power next year: for many conservatives within Merkel’s party will begin asking – if the SPD can form coalitions with the neo-communists in Die Linke, why shouldn’t conservatives look for a coalition with the anti-immigration AfD?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »