There was a time when the Labour Party was thought to represent the British working class.
That delusion can be laid to rest following the conviction this week of Oldham Labour councillor Abdul Malik, who was spared imprisonment at Manchester Crown Court this week after being convicted of offences against the Work at Height Regulations 2005, which had led to a near fatal accident in which an employee fell from scaffolding, breaking his hip and both heels.
This was an especially shameful exploitation of a vulnerable (and of course White) employee, who had “significant learning difficulties”, and who was instructed by his employer Cllr Malik to climb a hazardous scaffolding tower at the Oldham Bangladeshi Cultural Centre in 2013, consequently suffering his near-fatal fall.
H&D‘s assistant editor is especially disgusted by this: his great-uncle was killed near Oldham in a similar fall in the late 1920s, but he assumed that Labour Party and trade union actions had made such exploitation a thing of the past.
Sadly (as George Orwell knew) some are more equal than others. Cllr Malik (who represents Coldhurst ward, a Bangladeshi ghetto in central Oldham, and lives in Werneth, a formerly White area where H&D‘s assistant editor went to school) was told that his disgraceful conduct would normally have merited a prison sentence, but that his valuable work for the (Bangladeshi) community meant he would be spared jail.
Will the Labour Party now clean up their act and remove Cllr Malik and his ilk – a cabal of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin businessmen who are no more ‘socialist’ than Margaret Thatcher? We aren’t holding our breath.
UKIP crashed to a double defeat in two Rotherham by-elections yesterday. This is of course the council that was disgraced by its multiple failure to deal with the scandal of child abuse by Pakistani-origin residents. So bad was the scandal that Whitehall commissioners were appointed to oversee with most of the council’s affairs, and every councillor had to face re-election last May, leading to the election of 14 UKIP councillors as the main local opposition to Labour.
Yet far from building on this breakthrough, the party (now under the supposedly more northern-focused leadership of Paul Nuttall) seems to be in reverse gear.
In Dinnington ward, UKIP councillor Ian Finnie (first elected when he gained the seat from Labour in 2014, then re-elected in second place as part of last year’s all-out Rotherham election) had stepped down from the council claiming ill-health and family issues.
Labour hammered UKIP in the consequent by-election.
ROTHERHAM Dinnington (Lab gain from UKIP)
VJESTICA John (Labour Party) 670
HUNTER Lee James (UKIP) 303
MIDDLETON Christopher Norman (Conservative) 238
SMITH David (Independent) 232
HART Jean (Independent) 180
SCOTT Steven (Independent) 81
FOULSTONE Charles David Dowsing (Green) 78
THORNLEY Stephen James (Liberal Democrats) 75
The other by-election was in Brinsworth & Catcliffe ward, where the infamous Cllr John Gamble (later of the NF and EFP) was elected for the BNP in 2008. This ward went two Labour, one UKIP at last year’s elections. One of the (White) Labour councillors was forced to resign before Christmas after being found guilty of a sexual assault – nothing to do with kids this time: he ‘groped’ a female colleague at an official function. We assume alcohol was involved.
One might have thought this situation was made for UKIP, but again they polled very badly. Surprisingly the Lib Dem won by a landslide: apparently he’s a well known local doctor and they did one of those typical intensive Lib Dem local campaigns. Labour didn’t help themselves by putting up a (female) Asian candidate in a 90% White ward! Fair enough, she had won the ward in 2012 (when the main opposition was the BNP, who were damaged by the Gamble fiasco and generally dying). But in 2016 she was the one out of three Labour candidates who didn’t get in: UKIP beat her to get the third spot. I assume she will now retire from politics…
ROTHERHAM Brinsworth and Catcliffe (Lib Dem gain from Lab)
CARTER Adam Jonathon (Liberal Democrats) 2,000
AHMED Shabana (Labour Party) 519
WEBSTER Steven (UKIP) 389
OLIVER John Lester (Conservative) 91
WHYMAN Rebecca Louise (Green Party) 30
An intelligence expert at the Israeli Embassy in London was sacked last night after he was caught plotting against Sir Alan Duncan, number two to British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Shai Masot – ‘political officer’ at Israel’s embassy on Kensington Palace Gardens – was filmed as he talked about a plan to “take down” Sir Alan, who is a longstanding critic of Israeli policy.
The conversation took place last October at the Aubaine bistro on Kensington High St (a stone’s throw from the Embassy) between Mr Masot and his friend Maria Strizzolo, an aide to Education Minister Robert Halfon. Unlike Sir Alan, Mr Halfon is a staunch supporter of Israel – he is one of several Jews in Theresa May’s government and was formerly the full-time paid political director of Conservative Friends of Israel. There is no suggestion that Mr Halfon was part of the plot against his ministerial colleague, and it seems that Ms Strizzolo has resigned.
Also at the table was a man who had infiltrated Labour Friends of Israel but was actually an undercover reporter for the Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera: he filmed Mr Masot saying that all MPs have “something they are trying to hide”. Mr Masot then adds: “she [Ms Strizzolo] knows which MPs I want to take down”, and specifies “the deputy foreign minister”.
Ms Strizzolo replies: “You still want to go for it? …I thought we had, you know, neutralised him just a little bit, no?”
Mr Masot replies: “No.” He adds that Sir Alan was still “causing problems”.
However within hours of the story breaking last night it was clear that it was Mr Masot and Ms Strizzolo themselves who would be “taken down”.
Although Theresa May is a devoted friend of Israel, she will not appreciate this ham-fisted interference by someone who was a military/intelligence officer rather than a career diplomat, but was regarded by some (including himself) as one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s sharpest political operatives. On his Twitter profile (since hastily deleted) Mr Masot wrote: “Niccolò Macchiavelli is my God”. He can be grateful that he is not living in the age of Il Principe‘s author, when the likes of Mr Masot would have faced a fate far worse than dismissal.
Sunday PM update: Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard has made an unconvincing effort to dismiss the whole scandal as unimportant. Nice try Mr Pollard, but if this really didn’t matter the JC would have ignored it, rather than making your riposte its main story with a banner headline! Mr Pollard kvetches not only about Sir Alan but over his backbench colleague Sir Crispin Blunt, whom he describes as “probably the worst chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its history”. Sir Alan and Sir Crispin have one other thing in common, but surely the JC isn’t being ‘homophobic’?
Meanwhile the eminent Tory journalist Tim Montgomerie has weighed in with a silly Tweet arguing that (as opposed to the Israel Lobby) “the much, much bigger influence on our politics is Saudi money and from Gulf states generally”. Two questions for Mr Montgomerie: (1) If you reckon the Saudis are so powerful in Whitehall, how did the Foreign Secretary get away with such a trenchant (and fully justified) criticism of Saudi Arabia last month (it’s impossible to a imagine such a public attack on Israel by a British cabinet minister)? And (2): Shouldn’t you, Mr Montgomerie, declare your interest in this affair, as a longstanding friend of Robert Halfon, one of the two ministers involved?
Fellow Israel Firster Jonathan Hoffman was so panicked by the Masot scandal that he rushed to post an error-strewn article on the ultra-Zionist blog Harry’s Place. Mr Hoffman (who was last spotted by H&D attending the trial of pro-Palestinian folk singer Alison Chabloz) brought up the Daily Mail having “flirted with fascism” more than 80 years ago, and suggested that “Mail Editor Paul Dacre sure has a lot of questions to answer”. The only problem is that the Masot exposé was not published by the Daily Mail at all but by the Mail on Sunday, edited by Dacre’s bitter rival Geordie Greig. (As it happens the Foreign Secretary’s sister Rachel Johnson is a Mail on Sunday columnist.)
This afternoon H&D was informed that Masot’s political intelligence role at the Embassy had also included more subtle propaganda work, in addition to plotting smears against ministers. In July 2016 he was the main organiser of an Eid event at the Israeli Embassy for the Conservative Muslim Forum, in an effort to promote ‘Uncle Tom’ views favourable to Israel among British Muslims.
Government documents released yesterday by the National Archives of Australia reveal that the notorious Australian race law – section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – was the subject of intense discussion among ministers before it was introduced, and as originally drafted would have been far less restrictive.
However as many countries have found, once setting off down the path of restricting free speech in the interests of racial harmony, there is an inevitable slippery slope towards politically correct tyranny.
The original submission to Paul Keating’s cabinet in July 1992, drafted by then Attorney General Michael Duffy and only made public yesterday, stressed that “for an act to amount to racial vilification it must be an act or conduct that is likely to lead to incitement to hatred, contempt or ridicule and should not be relatively minor or be of the nature of a lighthearted racist joke.”
During their discussions of the draft, ministers went on to emphasise that prosecution should “require a series of precise conditions to be met”, including “actual offensive intent”. UK readers will note that this would have made the measure more similar to the Race Relations Act 1965, the first UK law specifically to outlaw “incitement to racial hatred”.
However as with the several later extensions of that landmark legislation, Australia’s Section 18C developed into a grotesque tyranny, restricting legitimate political debate and in extreme cases even being used against comedians and cartoonists.
Last year the well-known cartoonist Bill Leak was the target of a complaint under Section 18C over the cartoon (above) depicting an Aborigine, or what is now called an “indigenous Australian”. The complaint was later dropped after a public outcry over abuse of the law. The university student who made the complaint has since sought to present herself as the victim, whining that she had only intended a “conciliation process”!
What was originally portrayed as a law targeting serious incitements of “racist” violence is now employed to intimidate anyone dissenting from multiracial political orthodoxy. If Bill Leak had not been backed by The Australian, one of the country’s most powerful media outlets, he would have been crushed under the liberal juggernaut’s wheels.
A Financial Times survey of Labour councillors in some of its traditional heartland areas reveals demands from the party’s grassroots for Jeremy Corbyn to take a tougher line on “hard Brexit” and immigration controls.
Labour is increasingly divided between young liberals in inner London and other major cities, who typically supported the EU and favour Corbyn’s policy of unrestricted immigration, versus more socially conservative but traditionally pro-Labour voters in outer London and old industrial areas of the North and Midlands.
Peter Chand, a Labour councillor in River ward, Dagenham, said “the feeling on the doorstep is mainly about migration”, and suggested that his party should not insist on free movement when most voters had rejected this by voting for Brexit. Cllr Chand (who seems to be of Asian origin himself) says that the party should ease voters’ concerns by supporting “some kind of cap” on immigration.
Another Dagenham Labour councillor, Lee Waker of Village ward (where the BNP won a seat in 2006), told the FT that he favoured “hard Brexit” because for his voters “the quicker the EU is gone the better”.
Some of the councillors surveyed believed that UKIP remained a serious electoral threat in traditionally Labour-voting areas, while others felt that the Conservative Party remained a more realistic challenger in most of the country.
As it happens, most of the local elections in 2017 will be in Tory-dominated county councils. There are no scheduled elections in London, and most of the Labour-dominated metropolitan boroughs have no council elections, though new “super-mayors” will be elected in seven regions. If UKIP’s new leader Paul Nuttall is serious about challenging Labour in their traditional heartlands, his party will be concentrating on these – especially the new Tees Valley region which includes Hartlepool, one of his party’s growth area.
However local by-elections during 2016 (regularly analysed in each issue of H&D) have shown UKIP failing to make a serious impact in White working class areas that ought to have great potential. One recent example was Higher Croft ward, Blackburn with Darwen. At a by-election on December 15th, UKIP finished runners-up with 25% – at first sight a good result. Yet this is a ward where the BNP polled almost 30% at their peak a decade ago. If UKIP (post-referendum and post-Trump) is going to win Labour seats in northern England, it should certainly be winning Higher Croft (or at least coming a lot closer).
UKIP has just over four months to get its act together: failure in 2017 would surely mean the party’s over.
For the first time since the Second World War, a mainland British organisation is to be banned.
National Action was proscribed in December 2016 under the Terrorism Act (2000) which gives the Home Secretary power to issue such orders: infringement carries a penalty of up to ten years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
Click here to read the order submitted to Parliament. The ban took effect on Friday 16th December.
The vast majority of groups banned under the Terrorism Act are based elsewhere in the world: in fact the original purpose of the legislation was to criminalise UK fundraising and propaganda even when the groups in question have never threatened UK citizens or interests.
Apart from National Action, banned groups include fourteen Ulster-based paramilitary organisations (seven from each side of the province’s sectarian divide). Most of the remainder are Islamist groups, almost all of them based abroad, but there are also secular anti-Zionists such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), and militant Sikh, Basque and Tamil groups.
H&D readers will have different views on political strategy and tactics. However it is clear to all at the end of 2016 that the tyranny of our politically correct masters is intensifying.
Theresa May’s government is adopting a new definition of “anti-semitism” which effectively criminalises anti-Zionism; meanwhile the banning of National Action coincided with prosecution of Cambridge NA activist Lawrence Burns and a private prosecution of anti-Zionist singer Alison Chabloz.
H&D will report on the implications of these legal developments in the New Year.
Most of the UK media has been responsible in accurately reporting that Thomas Mair – convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment this week for murdering Labour MP Jo Cox – had no involvement with nationalist parties or groups.
Unfortunately one or two other media outlets (notably ITV News and the Daily Telegraph) have behaved disgracefully by repeating the blatant lies of Todd Blodgett, an FBI informant and crack cocaine addict whose first appearance on the political scene was as part of a male prostitution ring involving fellow drug abusers and perverts in the Reagan White House.
H&D‘s Mark Cotterill dealt with Blodgett’s lies in detail many weeks ago. (PDF courtesy of Financial Times.) To recap briefly for Fleet Street’s hard of thinking: Todd Blodgett claims to have met Thomas Mair at a meeting of prominent British nationalists in 2000. While Blodgett did travel to London to attend such a meeting, it was in 1998 (not 2000) and Thomas Mair did not attend. In fact to the best of our knowledge Mair never attended any nationalist meeting or activity – and most certainly would not have been invited to a gathering of high-level activists, since no-one had ever met him or knew anything about him.
Aside from ordering books and other items from a U.S. based mail order firm, and subscribing to a South African journal run by Alan Harvey (one of the most pro-Israel and anti-“nazi” individuals in the pro-White movement), Mair had no contact with any nationalists in the UK or abroad.
Law enforcement agencies on both sides of the Atlantic now have questions to answer.
- Have any UK police or security agencies encouraged the use of Blodgett’s lies by briefing British journalists about non-existent “ties” between Mair and nationalist groups?
- Assuming that Blodgett reported back to his FBI paymasters following his 1998 trip to London, did the FBI share this information with MI5 and Scotland Yard? If so, then both British and American agencies have known for 18 years the full attendance list from that meeting: and know perfectly well that Mair wasn’t there. Has the FBI briefed journalists with the true story, or have they collaborated in the lies?
- We now know that Blodgett was working for the FBI by about the turn of the millennium – but was he reporting to the FBI at any earlier stage? Specifically, was he working for the FBI when he was part of the White House vice ring in 1988? Was Blodgett’s involvement with male prostitution and illegal drugs (including cocaine) sanctioned by the FBI?
Some left-liberal journalists have complained that Thomas Mair was not charged with terrorist offences, and have suggested that this indicated bias by the police and prosecutors, who would not have hesitated to charge a Muslim with “terrorism” in similar circumstances. Senior police officers have been bumbling and evasive in their response to these complaints.
It’s time for the police to admit the simple reason why they didn’t charge Mair with terrorism. Had they done so, they would have been required in court to establish the extent of Mair’s political involvement. They could not do so because there was no such involvement. Even the much publicised contents of Mair’s bookshelf were not “nazi” books – they were books by “mainstream” authors (including Jews such as Deborah Lipstadt and Gerald Posner) about national socialist / racialist / conspiracy theory topics.
The simple truth is that Mair was a nutter not a “nazi”. For a combination of political and financial reasons, it has suited the likes of Todd Blodgett and his former paymasters in the secret world to pretend otherwise.
The main story in today’s Mail on Sunday is an interview with Nigel Farage by the paper’s political editor, Simon Walters. Farage indicates that he might stand again for Parliament, if the present investigation of allegedly illegal Tory election spending leads to a by-election in South Thanet, the Kent constituency where he polled 32.4% at last year’s general election.
Whether this means that Farage will stay in UKIP, or will go ahead with his long-planned breakaway to set up a new movement backed by Arron Banks’s money, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile we were distracted by a staggering display of political and historical illiteracy on the part of Mr Walters. The Mail on Sunday political editor writes:
“The front cover of this week’s Economist magazine shows Trump, Putin and Farage as militaristic 19th Century nationalists, strutting the world stage – in step. It’s a terrifying thought for many.”
H&D readers will be used to the Mail on Sunday‘s customary hysteria regarding nationalism, but this latest solecism is truly astonishing: it is perfectly obvious that the Economist cover is actually a pastiche of one of the most famous American historical paintings, Spirit of ’76, by Archibald Willard. Far from displaying “militaristic 19th Century nationalists”, the painting depicts 18th century American revolutionaries (obviously viewed as heroic by the artist).
Even if Mr Walters is ignorant of art and history, surely he has seen the 1963 film The Great Escape, in which Spirit of ’76 is mimicked by Steve McQueen and two fellow POWs on the 4th of July.
Meanwhile the background figure on the Economist cover is another pastiche, this time depicting Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, in the guise of Liberty Leading the People, the allegorical painting by Delacroix showing the Goddess of Liberty at the head of French revolutionaries in July 1830.
In other words all four of these figures whom Mr Walters and the Mail on Sunday clearly view as sinister – Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen – are actually being portrayed by positive (indeed heroic) artistic references!
For almost a century – since the first Armistice Day in November 1919 – Britons have paid tribute at this time of year to those of our race who died in the catastrophic wars of the twentieth century, and now the further disastrous conflicts of the twenty-first.
This year, for the first time, our remembrance is accompanied not merely by despair at the continuing folly and treachery of our political leaders, but by genuine hope of national, cultural and racial renaissance.
So this year the famous words inscribed on war memorials across our land (originally at the imperial war cemetery in Kohima) have a special resonance:
When you go home, tell them of us and say
For their tomorrow, we gave our today.
For the first time, that tomorrow holds out the promise not of continued degradation, not of further pointless sacrifice, but of a bright new dawn for the White world.
G.K. Chesterton would have relished last night’s political earthquake! I don’t know whether Donald Trump knows Chesterton’s 1907 poem, The Secret People, but changing just one word its opening lines could describe today’s America.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
Last night White America spoke: Wall Street and the world were forced to listen.
Hillary Clinton was the ultimate candidate for those Chesterton described as “new unhappy lords”:
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
Last night those lords were confounded. There will be time for analysis in the days ahead, and perhaps time for caveats. Most urgently, we must hope that President-elect Trump will confound the Islamophobe faction’s hopes, and make clear that he endorses Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran – by far the most important foreign policy issue.
Sadly last night did not see the political renaissance of David Duke, who was defeated in the Louisiana Senate race. But Duke’s message resonated throughout America. The Trump Revolution is a phenomenon more in tune with David Duke’s America than Sheldon Adelson’s America. And for that we can rejoice!