Italy heads for ‘post-fascist’ coalition

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni at a conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

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.

Immigration surges after Brexit referendum

Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.

The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).

Veteran journalist admits immigration ‘taboo’

John Sergeant

John Sergeant – one of Britain’s best known political journalists – has admitted that immigration was for decades treated as a ‘taboo’ subject by the journalistic establishment.

Sergeant worked for the BBC for thirty years, latterly as chief political correspondent from 1992 to 2000, and was political editor of their rival ITN from 2000 to 2002.

Writing in the Radio Times, he acknowledged:

“In my years [at] the BBC and ITV, I was fully aware of the immigration taboo. There is an old journalistic rule that says ‘if in doubt, leave it out’ and, looking back, we were guilty of not encouraging more serious debate on this subject.”

Sergeant added:

“At least we could try to reduce personal attacks on the integrity of those who put forward the case for a proper system of immigration control. It is not racist to talk openly about this subject.

“It is yet another difficult issue that we have to grapple with. And if we fail to do so, this country and our democracy will suffer for many years to come. But as with all serious political issues, brushing it under the carpet is also dangerous and it leads to widespread misunderstandings that we fail to address at our peril.”

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

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

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

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

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

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

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

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

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

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

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

(by James Knight for H&D)

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

 

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

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

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

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

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

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

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

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

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

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

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

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

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”.

 

 

 

 

Big gains for Swedish anti-immigration party

Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson casting his vote in today’s general election

As counting ends after today’s general election in Sweden, the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats have made significant gains, polling 17.6% of the vote and probably holding the balance of power. It will be impossible for the centre-right ‘Moderates’ to form a government without the support of the Sweden Democrats, while the ruling Social Democrats have slipped to their worst result since 1908 and can now only govern with the support of the extreme left.

In reality the Sweden Democrats (led by a former Moderates activist Jimmie Åkesson) are today ideologically similar to the right-wing of our Conservative Party, though when it was founded in the late 1980s the origins of the party were among hardline racial nationalists, including former members of the Waffen-SS.

The biggest reason for the party’s recent success has been the shocking ethnic transformation of Sweden, which within living memory was an almost entirely White country. Since 2015 the left-wing government has allowed the entry of 163,000 immigrants – and remember that Sweden has less than one-sixth the population of the UK. Sweden has for the last few years had the highest per capita immigration rate of any European country.

It will be very interesting to see whether the Sweden Democrats are allowed any role in government, in what was arguably the most consistently left-wing 20th century democracy. And if they are excluded from government, will the anti-immigration rage of the Swedish people be further inflamed?

 

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

The real victims of Windrush

Sajid Javid, the UK's first Asian Home Secretary

Sajid Javid, the UK’s first Asian Home Secretary

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!

Daily Mail witch hunt against Max Mosley

 

Today’s Daily Mail launches an extraordinary vendetta against Max Mosley, son of former Labour minister and British Union of Fascists founder Sir Oswald Mosley.

Mail editor Paul Dacre is one of many Fleet Street barons determined to undermine the new press regulator Impress, which was backed by Max Mosley after many press abuses uncovered by the Leveson Inquiry.

Hence this desperate effort to dig up anti-Mosley dirt from more than half a century ago.

The main focus of today’s story is Max Mosley’s role as election agent for Walter Hesketh, candidate for Union Movement at the Manchester Moss Side by-election in November 1961.  Some of the background was discussed two years ago in H&D‘s review of Max Mosley’s memoirs, in Issue 73.

A recent review about “cialis 5 mg ” show that men’s most common sexual health problem is ED.
Both the Mail and last night’s Channel 4 News highlight a UM election leaflet’s alleged ‘racism’, in an effort to embarrass Max Mosley (who is now almost 78 years old) with views he endorsed as a 21-year-old.


The truth is that hostility to immigration was not confined to Mosleyites.  On October 12th 1961 for example, the Daily Mail itself approvingly quoted a speech to the Conservative Party Conference by Frank Taylor, Tory candidate at that same Manchester Moss Side by-election.  Mr Taylor (who won the by-election and remained Moss Side MP until 1974) said that at the start of the campaign he had met a “coloured man” in the constituency who had been unemployed for more than eight years: “Ladies and gentlemen, you and I are keeping him and his wife and about six delightful little piccaninnies I saw around him.”

Earlier the same year a Daily Mail headline had complained – “Still the West Indians pour in”; while a Daily Mail editorial in October 1961 (headlined ‘A Question of Colour’) would doubtless arouse Mr Dacre’s opprobrium today:
“In asking for a check to immigration most speakers [at the Tory conference] disavowed colour prejudice.  But, in fact, that is at the root of a demand which was not made until West Indians began pouring in.”

That Mail editorial continued: “To express dismay at this influx is legitimate.  There is a case for saying: ‘We believe coloured immigration lowers standards, depresses property values, and may lead to widespread miscegenation.’  But how many people are honest enough to say these things in public?  Not many at the Conservative Conference.”

Dad’s Army star and former Mosleyite Clive Dunn was (unlike Max Mosley) never hounded for his political past.

Today the Mail professes to be shocked by the Mosleyite leaflet from 1961 – especially its warning of the health dangers posed by non-white immigration.  Yet in September 1961 the Daily Mail itself published a warning by a London health officer, Dr Herbert Chalke, under the headline: “Immigrants ‘cause new health problems’”. “Hygiene standards among West Indians, Nigerians, and other coloured immigrants are so low that new problems are being created for London’s health authorities.”

Even aside from the Mail‘s blatant hypocrisy, their obsessive hounding of Max Mosley raises questions as to where the paper draws the line: is no-one allowed to change their political views?  Would the newspaper have similarly pursued former Blackshirts such as comedian Spike Milligan; Dad’s Army actor Clive Dunn; eminent conductor Sir Reginald Goodall; or senior judge Sir Frederick Lawton?

And what about the ‘other Max’ – Labour Councillor Trevor Maxfield who has represented the Labour Party on Blackburn with Darwen Council for more than seven years, despite being a former branch organiser for the BNP?

 

The Daily Mail itself was once the greatest media supporter of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists

 

The Mail was not always politically correct

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter