While many sections of our movement enthusiastically campaigned for ‘Brexit’ and are still celebrating victory in this year’s referendum, a little-discussed subplot of the Brexit drama developed further this week.
For most Brexit voters, immigration was the most important issue at stake in the referendum. Yet among their fellow Brexiteers were lobby groups such as the Bangladesh Caterers Association, representing Britain’s curry restaurant trade. They backed Brexit on the basis that reducing immigration from European countries would mean increasing immigration from the Indian subcontinent.
Now the curry trade is further inflaming the debate. According to the Financial Times, Pasha Khandaker, president of the Bangladesh Caterers Association, has said that he is disappointed by the current rhetoric of Theresa May and her Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who have indicated their aim to reduce annual net migration to below 100,000.
Mr Khandaker sees this as a betrayal, since he believed that Brexit would lead to an “Australian style points system” which would benefit his industry’s case for more Asian immigrants.
H&D would make two points here. First, this exposes yet again the absurdity of nationalists arguing for an Australian-style immigration system, which every informed person knows has for many years been a disaster for White Australia.
Second: Mr Khandaker shouldn’t be too worried by Tory rhetoric on immigration. If past experience is any guide, the present Prime Minister (just like her ‘Iron Lady’ predecessor) will talk a great deal about immigration, then preside over a further ethnic transformation of our country.
Even if today’s Tories succeed in cutting net immigration to 100,000, the ethnic complexion of those new arrivals will be a great deal darker than when we were in the EU. Good news for colour-blind Ukippers perhaps, but a disaster for racial nationalists.
A Paris court on Tuesday this week gave Prof. Robert Faurisson – an 87-year-old half-French, half Scot who was Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon – a four-month suspended jail sentence and a €4,000 fine. Judgement on a further charge will be given later this week.
The circumstances of Prof. Faurisson’s trial were explained at a meeting of the London Forum in July 2016 by Lady Michèle Renouf, who was the sole defence witness alongside Prof. Faurisson at his Paris trial.
In September 2016 Prof. Faurisson was convicted under the French “racial hatred” law for the 60-word sentence translated below: the Paris court taking the extraordinary view that his reference to “the State of Israel and international Zionism” amounted to an illegal attack on Jews as a “race”.
For this “offence” Prof. Faurisson received a 4 month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €4,000. He was ordered in addition to pay €5,000 in compensation and costs to LICRA, a French association combatting “racism and anti-semitism”.
Two additional charges under the French “Gayssot Act” prohibiting “Holocaust denial”, which related specifically to Prof. Faurisson’s Tehran conference speech, were set aside.
Prof. Faurisson immediately announced his intention to appeal against this latest conviction: an appeal which is of the highest importance for historical and political researchers worldwide, and in particular for anyone campaigning against the policies of the Israeli Government. It would seem that the latest judgement opens the way for any robust criticism of Israel to be criminalised in France as anti-Jewish “racial hatred”, even if neither Jews nor Judaism have been mentioned!
Further reports and analysis of this case will appear in the next edition of Heritage and Destiny.
An earlier interview with Prof. Robert Faurisson can be seen below (including English subtitles), in which he explains the background to his famous 60-word French sentence summarising his research conclusions. Prof. Faurisson’s words (again criminalised by the Paris court this week), read in English:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
A network of organisations run by billionaire George Soros (notorious for his profitable speculation against the pound on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992) has been successfully targeted in a massive leak of confidential documents, published online today.
One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.
This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections. According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections. The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”
UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register. It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.
Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning. Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.
Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way. The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”
This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.
However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment. While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”
H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections. Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!
Joe Chiffers was UKIP candidate for Liverpool Riverside at the last general election. A few months ago, having become disillusioned with UKIP’s avoidance of fundamental issues, he quit and joined Jack Sen’s British Renaissance, where he was appointed party chairman for a few months earlier this year.
Now the Liverpool Echo and its national parent the Daily Mirror are trying to have Joe Chiffers sacked from his job with Liverpool solicitors MSB. There is no suggestion that Mr Chiffers has behaved improperly in any way, or allowed his political views to influence his work to the detriment of clients. It has long been accepted that solicitors or barristers will represent clients regardless of their political views, and many lawyers have held ‘extreme’ political views.
Indeed Frederick Lawton, a candidate for the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s who was directly involved in attempting to secure funding from the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist governments for BUF projects, later became (as Sir Frederick Lawton) one of Britain’s most senior judges, sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal until his retirement in 1986. It has often been more difficult for solicitors than for barristers to hold racial nationalist views, unless they are sole practitioners or in a partnership with fellow nationalists. Examples of nationalist solicitors include the Leicestershire firm run by Anthony Reed Herbert and Philip Gegan of the NF and (original) BDP; the late Tessa Sempik (partner of former NF vice-chairman Richard Verrall); and English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook.
MSB Solicitors’ managing partner Paul Bibby told the Liverpool Echo that Mr Chiffers was facing disciplinary action, saying that MSB “pride ourselves on being a socially liberal firm and the views expressed are absolutely the antithesis of what we stand for at MSB”.
What does Mr Bibby’s “liberalism” amount to? Does it mean slavish adherence to a politically correct litmus test? Or does it mean liberal tolerance of diverse opinions?
Unsurprisingly the likes of Simon Fox (chief executive of the newspaper group pursuing Mr Chiffers) have no time for such fine British traditions. The values of Mr Fox and his ilk are entirely alien, and reflected every day in their newspapers.
We hope that MSB Solicitors will reject this disgraceful attempt to impose political censorship and ideological uniformity on the legal profession. Meanwhile Joe Chiffers has released a video response to his would-be persecutors.
Also worth watching is an earlier speech by Mr Chiffers delivered to a UKIP audience, on the origin and intent of the European Union (see below).
We shall inform H&D readers of further developments in this disturbing case.
Giles Fraser – a left-wing but pro-Brexit Anglican vicar – has recently drawn attention to the religious background of Theresa May, newly appointed Prime Minister. It is well known that Mrs May is a vicar’s daughter. Less well known (as Fr. Fraser points out) is that her father was on the most extreme Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England. This carries politically incorrect implications that Fr. Fraser chooses not to discuss.
During Mrs May’s childhood her father – Fr. Hubert Brasier – was successively vicar of two countryside parishes near Oxford: St Kenelm, Enstone, from 1959 to 1970; and St Mary the Virgin, Wheatley, from 1970 until his death in 1981.
In her appearance on the BBC’s Desert Island Discs in 2014, Mrs May chose as one of her eight records the hymn ‘Therefore we before him bending’. As Fr. Fraser writes in his Guardian article:
Now this really is a fascinating choice. First, because no one who wasn’t a proper churchgoer would ever have heard of it. And, second, because it betrays the enormous sacramental influence of her high church father. Benediction, the worship of the blessed sacrament – or “wafer worship” as Protestant scoffers often describe it – is pretty hardcore Anglo-Catholic stuff. That’s why she was named after a 500-year-old Catholic saint. As time goes on, this background is bound to shape her ministry – and yes, that’s how she will think of it.
During her Desert Island Discs interview, Mrs May recalled:
“a hymn which sometimes, if my father and mother and I were alone in the church, we would just kneel down and sing …’Therefore we before him Bending'”
There is a reason why this hymn would have been sung by the vicar’s family in the absence of the congregation: this particular hymn (known to Roman Catholics down the centuries as Tantum ergo) is theological and political dynamite! It is sung during a service formally known as ‘Benediction of (or with) the Blessed Sacrament’‘.
This service is seen by the more Protestant (‘low church’) end of the Church of England as illegal: earlier in the last century there would sometimes be legal action taken against Anglo-Catholic vicars by parishoners if Benediction was introduced into their church. Very likely this was the reason for Fr Brasier singing this service in private with his family. Certainly the current website of St Mary’s, Wheatley, does not suggest that it is today an exceptionally “high church” parish.
Several decades later a wider issue is raised by the words of the Tantum ergo (written by the great scholar St Thomas Aquinas in the mid-13th century). Latin being a very precise language, there is no room here for modern liberal fudging: St Thomas writes that we venerate the blessed sacrament – the body and blood of Christ – as we celebrate the transition from the old covenant (between God and his ‘chosen people’, the Jews) to the new covenant (between God and Christians).
The English words of the hymn sung by Theresa May and her family are obscure, but the Latin original is clear: et antiquum documentum novo cedat ritui. The ancient document – the old covenant – gives way to the new rite, represented by the substance of Christ’s body and blood in the form (the ‘accidental’ appearance) of bread and wine.
Cedat is the important word here: the Latin verb cedere meaning to surrender, yield, or give way – as in English to cede territory after a war, to concede in an argument, or indeed to succeed – as Prime Minister May has succeeded David Cameron.
Modern, liberal Catholic spokesmen have sometimes argued that the old covenant with the Jews remains in force alongside the new covenant sealed by Christ’s death and resurrection. Ironically Fr. Brasier’s old parish at Enstone includes the village of Heythrop – which was the original base of Heythrop College, London University’s specialist theological college founded by the Jesuits. Modern tutors at Heythrop – such as former principal Brendan Callaghan – have been in the forefront of those arguing that the divine covenant with Jewry remains valid. Pope Francis recently insisted that the Church “recognises the irrevocability of the covenant and God’s constant and faithful love for Israel.” He added: “it is clear there is an inseparable bond between Christians and Jews.”
Yet if Prime Minister May truly believes the words of the hymn she sang as a child – the words she chose to take with her to the BBC’s putative desert island – she cannot believe this, any more than she could believe that David Cameron retains Prime Ministerial authority alongside her.
This raises a contradiction for Mrs May, who has identified herself very strongly with the Zionist bandit state of Israel – whether through conviction or political convenience, one cannot tell.
In April 2015 (as Home Secretary) Mrs May addressed Britain’s largest Zionist youth movement in a speech celebrating the 67th anniversary of Israel’s foundation, a catastrophe known to Palestinians as the Nakba.
Mrs May explicitly referred to commemorating Yom Hazikaron, the day on which “We remember the sacrifice of those who fought to achieve and protect that independence.”
This means most notably those Zionist terrorists who died fighting against British forces and Arab civilians during 1945-48, and includes those who were executed for atrocities such as the murder of Lord Moyne and his driver Lance Corporal Arthur Fuller.
How can an educated person at one and the same time believe in the words of St Thomas Aquinas in the Tantum ergo – the traditional teaching of the Christian church down the centuries – yet at the same time celebrate the creation of the State of Israel as a fulfilment of the old covenant with Jewry, which had – according to that Christian doctrine – been abrogated?
How can a British political leader publicly “remember the sacrifice” of Jewish, anti-British terrorists as though they were heroes?
Perhaps for an aspirant Prime Minister any heresy, any betrayal, any hypocrisy is conceivable for the sake of personal ambition.
Among all the acres of newsprint presently devoted to Brexit and its consequences, one of the most perceptive articles is by veteran political journalist Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail.
After noting Jeremy Corbyn’s extraordinary betrayal of his own principles – the Labour leader has spent most of his life as a committed opponent of the European Union, yet half-heartedly campaigned for Remain rather than taking a principled stand at the head of Labour’s small pro-Leave faction – Glover writes:
The reason he failed to do so was not simply a kind of bumbling cowardice. Ensconced in his Islington redoubt, he is surrounded by metropolitan lefties such as his neo-Stalinist director of strategy, the former Guardian journalist and Winchester College-educated Seumas Milne, who neither know nor care about Labour’s working-class voters.
Corbyn is unable to relate to their fears. In his handbook of international socialism, immigration is an unalloyed good which must be promoted at every opportunity. It doesn’t matter to him or to his advisers that millions of Labour voters have seen their wage rates undercut by EU workers, and pressure placed on their schools, hospitals and GP surgeries by uncontrollable EU migration.
I’ve no doubt, too, that Corbyn can’t understand the deep patriotism — and the desire not to be bullied by bloodless Brussels-based Eurocrats — which so many of these decent people feel. His neighbouring Labour MP in Islington, whom he has promoted to be Shadow Defence Secretary notwithstanding her almost total ignorance of her brief, is Emily Thornberry.
Having been sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by Ed Miliband after she had sneeringly tweeted a picture of a family home draped with flags of St George, her banishment did not last long. Corbyn obligingly rehabilitated her soon after his election as Leader.
His almost bone-headed inability to grasp the effects of mass immigration on working-class communities was paraded by him in the most shaming way last Sunday on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show.
Having loftily blamed the pressure on housing and schools on the Tory Government’s spending cuts, he asserted with absurd myopia: ‘There is no “uncontrolled immigration”. There is freedom of movement that goes both ways: more than two million British people are living in Europe.’ No wonder Labour supporters voted as they did!
To read Glover’s full article, click here.
The British people – and in particular the White working class of England – have delivered a stunning rebuke to their political leaders in what amounts to the first revolutionary moment in British politics since 1945.
Prime Minister David Cameron has quit – his career in ruins – after the United Kingdom voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union. When Cameron’s Conservatives won last year’s general election, the turnout was 66%. This week’s referendum saw a 72% turnout (73% in England).
While the bastions of privilege that are Cameron’s natural home voted heavily in favour of Remain, there was a Leave landslide in White working class areas. Kensington & Chelsea voted 69-31 for Remain; Oldham voted 61-39 for Leave.
Further analysis of this result will soon appear on this site and in the new edition of Heritage and Destiny, which will be published in a week’s time.
For now we leave you with the old socialist hymn England Arise! Finally voters have recognised that the Labour Party no longer speaks for England. Whether UKIP can radicalise itself sufficiently to do so remains to be seen. A nationalist movement will surely rise from the ashes of the BNP.
England, arise! The long, long night is over,
Faint in the East behold the dawn appear,
Out of your evil dream of toil and sorrow –
Arise, O England, for the day is here!
From your fields and hills,
Hark! The answer swells –
Arise, O England, for the day is here!
People of England! All your valleys call you,
High in the rising sun the lark sings clear,
Will you dream on, let shameful slumber thrall you?
Will you disown your native land so dear?
Shall it die unheard –
That sweet pleading word?
Arise, O England, for the day is here!
Over your face a web of lies is woven,
Laws that are falsehoods pin you to the ground,
Labor is mocked, its just reward is stolen,
On its bent back sits Idleness encrowned.
How long, while you sleep,
Your harvest shall it reap?
Arise, O England, for the day is here!
Forth, then, ye heroes, patriots and lovers!
Comrades of danger, poverty and scorn!
Mighty in faith of Freedom, thy great Mother!
Giants refreshed in Joy’s new rising morn!
Come and swell the song,
Silent now so long;
England is risen, and the day is here!
Britain’s press barons are closing ranks behind an increasingly desperate Prime Minister David Cameron, as the City of London elite begins to fear that the referendum vote might be moving in favour of Brexit.
Their latest tactic in today’s Mail on Sunday is to declare that “racists” are “hijacking the Brexit campaign”.
We suggest that the Mail‘s journalists should take their medicine, sit down and think about the realities of referendum politics.
Any referendum by its very nature reduces the complexities of politics to a simple Yes/No dichotomy.
Inevitably therefore both the Remain camp and the Leave camp will contain individuals who on other issues would strongly disagree with each other.
Individuals featured in the Mail‘s story, such as Eva Van Housen, Mark Collett, Richard Edmonds, Kevin Layzell and Tony Martin all have the political maturity to recognise this. Sadly the Mail‘s journalists haven’t yet worked out this basic political principle.
As for “hijacking”, readers should bear in mind that nationalists who support Brexit do so at their own trouble and expense, without the slightest prospect of financial gain. Unlike journalists who sell their integrity to billionaire press barons.
Today’s Mail on Sunday reveals a complex scandal concerning Baroness Scotland – now Secretary General of the Commonwealth – and her cosy relationship with a wealthy public relations fixer who faces being stripped of his knighthood.
H&D readers will remember Baroness Scotland as the Attorney General in Gordon Brown’s government from 2007 to 2010, who disgraced her office by colluding with the German government in its efforts to extradite Australian academic Dr Fredrick Töben.
These efforts were ultimately blocked by a British court in October 2008, allowing Dr Töben to return to Australia, but only after British nationalists and other supporters of academic freedom had to raise an astonishing £100,000 as cash security for Dr Töben’s bail pending his appeal. See report on the case here, and the eventual victory here.
The German government’s attempt to prosecute Dr Töben were only possible because Britain had signed up to the European Arrest Warrant system, which allowed government’s to apply for extradition from fellow European countries without having to go through the old procedures of a full extradition hearing into the facts of the case.
Most importantly the new system scrapped the principle of “dual criminality”, which ensured that one could only be extradited from the UK if accused of something that would have been a crime if committed here.
Dr Töben’s “crime” would certainly not have been illegal here: he was wanted in Germany under that country’s notoriously oppressive laws restricting what historians, scientists or indeed anyone else can say about certain historical topics.
Specifically Dr Töben had disputed the orthodox historical account of the supposed homicidal gas chambers which are alleged to have killed several million Jews during the Second World War, supposedly on the orders of Adolf Hitler. No one has been able to find any document from Adolf Hitler ordering such a mass murder, nor has anyone answered the famous challenge of Prof. Robert Faurisson (a French expert on documentary analysis) who asked: “show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber”.
Nevertheless Dr Töben would assuredly have faced several years in a German prison cell had he been extradited under a European Arrest Warrant – for something that is not a crime in our country!
Earlier in her career the same Baroness Scotland – who as Attorney General was responsible for colluding with her German counterparts in the attempted judicial kidnapping of Dr Töben – had been the Home Office minister responsible for piloting the new EAW system through the House of Lords.
She specifically assured Parliament in 2003 that revisionist historians such as Dr. Töben would not be subject to extradition under European Arrest Warrants for publishing their views on the internet. Yet five years later she allowed her senior officials to proceed with exactly the type of extradition which she had promised Parliament could never take place.
Had there been any sense of honour in politics, Baroness Scotland would have resigned as Attorney General following the Töben case in 2008, yet she remained until Labour lost office in 2010 and has since been promoted (under a Tory government!) to the position of Commonwealth Secretary-General. God knows what our Commonwealth partners in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are supposed to make of this latest demeaning of high office.
In 2009 she survived public outrage and remained Attorney General even after having been found to employ an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper. Baroness Scotland was fined £5,000 for this offence but kept her job: though to his credit her parliamentary private secretary (Labour MP Stephen Hesford) resigned in protest, saying she should have quit or been sacked.
The latest scandal exposed today by The Mail on Sunday might just halt the Baroness’s meteoric rise, but as all nationalists know – “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
We are not surprised to see that the Baroness’s disgraced associate “Sir” Anthony Bailey is one of the leading campaigners for British membership of the European Union, and was a big donor to David Miliband’s failed campaign for Labour leader.
Guest column by Frederick Dixson
How could anyone vote to leave the European Union now that we know that we will all be £4,300 a year better off by 2030 if we stay in? Except, of course, that we will all be better off anyway even if we leave, just by not quite as much! All of that is assuming that economic growth continues at a predictable rate until 2030. And in economics nothing is predictable. If the Treasury is trying to look ahead fourteen years to 2030, try instead to look back fourteen years to 2002 and ask yourself how many economists then predicted the crash of 2008 – answer, none.
It’s not just dodgy forecasts that we can pick up from the Treasury’s document. There are also all those little things which the Treasury chose to ignore or brush aside but which will have quite a significant, and positive, effect should we choose to leave. To mention a few of those positive things; freedom from regulation, freedom to trade with the rest of the world, freedom from having to pay millions of pounds in tribute to the EU every day, freedom from the colossal cost to our infrastructure (schools, housing, transport, NHS) of mass immigration.
With mass immigration I come to the issue which, I suspect, is the real concern of readers of Heritage and Destiny. It is beyond belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government which is pledged to reduce mass immigration to the tens of thousands, has predicated much of his strategy for economic growth on continuing mass immigration adding a further 3.3 million EU migrants to our population by 2030! This implies 235,000 EU migrants per annum and does not include those from outside the EU, nor births to all the newcomers and to those “Non White British” already living here.
So here are some facts – not forecasts because the implications are obvious – of my own. Excluding the other countries of the United Kingdom whose populations are more or less stable and which attract little immigration, the population of England at the census of 2011 was 53 million of whom 42 million (80%) declared themselves to be White British. (It may be of interest to note that the population of England according to the census of 1951 was then 42 million, almost all White British). The 20% who are not White British have 35% of the children born annually in England, adding around 240,000 to their number every year. Annual net immigration, excluding British citizens returning to the UK after a spell abroad, is now running at 363000. So the total annual increase in the Non White British population is in the order of 600,000, a figure which can only go up as children are born to the future new arrivals. Given these figures it is easy to see how the Office for National Statistics has calculated that White British people will be a minority among under 18s by 2037, just 21 years from now.
Our national identity is being ground out of existence and Englishmen such as George Osborne and David Cameron are throwing the entire government machine into hastening the process. They must be thwarted.