A party which has existed for less than three years now has representatives in 12 of the 16 German regional parliaments.
Racial nationalists are closely watching politics in Germany, where incumbent – supposedly ‘conservative’ – Chancellor Angela Merkel shamefully betrayed her people in 2015 by welcoming hordes of immigrants, with horrific consequences.
A general election is due in September this year, which polls and most observers predict Merkel will lose. She has been in power with the support of the socialist SPD, but increasing numbers of German voters have been flocking to the anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has only existed since 2013 and has become increasingly radical on immigration and related questions since 2015.
Today there was an election for the Landtag (regional parliament) of Saarland, a region with a population around one million, centred on the city of Saarbrücken, near the German-French border.
Slightly surprisingly, early results show that Merkel’s party has polled quite well in Saarland, perhaps because conservative voters were alarmed at the possibility of a socialist alliance with the ex-communist Left Party (Die Linke).
Some weak-willed middle class voters of this sort have thus been prepared to ignore or forgive Merkel’s shocking betrayal of German interests. Nevertheless, it was a positive sign that AfD won Saarland Landtag seats for the first time today, polling somewhere over 6%.
The next German regional election is in North Rhine-Westphalia – the largest of Germany’s states with a population of 18 million, including four big cities: Cologne, Düsseldorf, Dortmund and Essen. This NRW region has taken a vast number of the immigrants admitted by Merkel. Seen as a socialist stronghold, NRW votes on May 14th. A week earlier French voters will have the decisive second round in their presidential election. Marine Le Pen is expected to contest that second round against a centrist, pro-immigration candidate.
Votes are still being counted in today’s Dutch general election, but it seems that Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamic activist seen by some (though not H&D) as part of Europe’s “far right” has made far fewer gains than expected.
The first headline was the record turnout of 82% (here in the UK we haven’t had that sort of turnout since 1951).
And though Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s conservative People’s Party has lost seats, it will remain the largest party. Rutte will stay in office with the support of several other centre-right and liberal parties.
Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom will be the joint second-largest party, probably increasing its representation in the Dutch parliament from 12 to 19, but has no chance of a role in government. Though an improvement on last time, this is well below Wilders’ best result in 2010 when his party won 24 seats.
The biggest winners today were a very different opposition party, Green-Left, who became the largest Dutch left-wing party, quadrupling their parliamentary seats from 4 to 16. While the big losers were the Labour Party – formerly, as in the UK, the main opposition party – who collapsed from 35 seats to 9.
As in France, the Dutch left is now fragmented into several different parties, with more radical forces in the ascendant. And that is the big long-term story: as in many other countries, mainstream conservatism just about holds on to power by patching together coalitions, getting weaker all the time; meanwhile the Left is in existential crisis, increasingly obsessed by racial/gender identity politics or environmentalism, while unable to face the fact that mass immigration has betrayed the Left’s traditional constituency – the white working class.
Liberal media commentators will be quick to hail this result as a setback for the “European far right”, but the truth is that Marine Le Pan is a far more serious politician than Wilders, and her FN has a much more solid political base than the Freedom Party. Don’t bet against Marine Le Pen winning the first ballot in next month’s French presidential elections!
Establishment media commentators are increasingly panicked by the prospect of Marine Le Pen being elected President of France on May 7th. The Financial Times today reports: “Marine Le Pen has a better chance in France than you think”. The venerable Andreas Whittam Smith in The Independent speculates: “This is what would have to go wrong for Marine Le Pen to win the presidential election”. New Statesman correspondent Stephen Bush suggests that Marine Le Pen can still win the presidency. While Sky News Europe correspondent Mark Stone has just posted a report on “Why Marine Le Pen’s message resonates across France”.
Let’s be clear – the odds remain heavily against Marine Le Pen winning (this time) because of the French electoral system. Probably around ten candidates will qualify for the first round of the presidential election on April 23rd, and opinion polls have for some time been almost unanimous in showing that Marine Le Pen will be ahead in this first round, with something like 27% of the nationwide vote.
But she would then have to win a second round against the runner-up.
For some time this looked likely to be a Thatcher-style conservative – François Fillon of the Republicans, who under the former name UMP were led by former Presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy.
But following financial scandals it looks likely that Fillon might be overtaken by the ex-socialist Emmanuel Macron, who created his own centrist party last year and has enjoyed a surge of media-fuelled support (similar to the SDP over here in the early 1980s).
Macron’s chances have been boosted by today’s endorsement from François Bayrou, a relic of the more “moderate” conservatism which ruled France in the 1970s under President Giscard – the type of politics which founded and still dominates European Union bureaucracies. Bayrou split his own party in 2007 to form the “Democracy Movement”: by supporting Macron this year he has effectively declared the death of “moderate” French conservatism. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose politics are similar to Bayrou, must be looking on nervously as she faces her own struggle for re-election on September 24th this year.
Meanwhile in fourth place are the ruling Socialists. Though incumbent President François Hollande decided not to stand for re-election, and his party opted for the most far-left alternative candidate Benoît Hamon, polls suggest that Hamon has in a matter of weeks doubled the pathetic vote that Hollande would have polled. Hamon (15%) seems to be no longer too far behind Fillon and Macron (each on around 20%).
However there are candidates even further to the left than Hamon, such as former minister Jean-Luc Mélenchon (12%) and an assortment of Trotskyists and Greens (about 3% combined). Only if Mélenchon quits the race does it seem possible for Hamon to qualify for the second round.
And – realistically – this would be the most obvious chance for Marine Le Pen. Regardless of “anti-fascist” demonisation, would French conservatives really elect a President from the far left to defeat her? (The only presidential challenger to her hegemony over the non-conservative right is perennial traditionalist candidate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who though a long-term ally of Nigel Farage and UKIP only polls around 3%.)
More interesting (especially in the longer term) is the alternative scenario. Increasing numbers of working-class French voters (including former socialists/communists) see Marine Le Pen and her party as champions of the worker against the pitiless, international and cosmopolitan values of the “free” market. She has achieved this – remarkably – without suffering too many damaging splits within her own movement.
Marine Le Pen has long recognised this trend. While trying to “de-demonise” the party in some areas, such as her (so-far fruitless) attempts to appeal to Zionist/Jewish opinion by stressing a common front against radical Islam, she has in terms of economic/financial policy been far more radical than her father, who at one time was aligned with Reaganites and Thatcherites in an anti-communist, pro-capitalist stance.
Even if Hamon makes it into the second round, the French left is surely bankrupt. Marine Le Pen and the FN have a great chance of reaching the Elysée Palace – if not this year then in 2022.
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?
Europe’s most powerful ‘conservative’ leader – German Chancellor Angela Merkel – was humiliated a fortnight ago by a new nationalist party in elections for the regional parliament of her home area Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This weekend she faces further problems in Berlin, Germany’s capital.
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is on the north-east border of today’s Germany (though many traditional ethnic German areas are further east, presently within the borders of Poland or Russia). It includes Rostock and several other Hanseatic ports whose trading agreements were the origins of the modern German state: the regional parliament (or Landtag) is in the medieval city of Schwerin.
As elsewhere in Merkel’s Germany, economic crisis has been exacerbated by the flood of immigrants – encouraged by a supposedly ‘conservative’ chancellor and her government. Both in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and nationwide, government is a coalition of Merkel’s CDU-CSU and the social democratic SPD.
In other words Germans have the equivalent of a Tory-Labour coalition, eagerly promoting immigration and ‘one-worldism’!
Understandably German voters have increasingly turned against this wicked betrayal. Just over three years ago a new party was created called ‘Alternative for Germany’ (Alternative für Deutschland – AfD). At first this was a milder version of our UKIP, focused on calls for reform of the EU rather than withdrawal, and careful not to say anything too ‘extreme’ about immigration.
However, as detailed in several recent issues of Heritage and Destiny, the AfD has moved in a significantly more radical direction over the past year or so under its new leader Frauke Petry. Ignoring the usual smears, the party has continued to pick up support.
The elections on September 4th were the first time that AfD had contested the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern landtag – and for the first time nationwide the party finished ahead of Merkel’s CDU!
The SPD was in first place (as at the previous election in 2011) but its vote fell from 35.6% to 30.6%. AfD was in second place with 20.8% in the party’s first campaign for this landtag. The CDU vote dropped from 23% to 19%, while the neo-Marxist ‘Left Party’ (Die Linke) was down from 18.4% to 13.2%.
Two parties dropped out of the landtag after their vote fell below the 5% threshold. The Greens are down from 8.7% to 4.8%, while the nationalist NPD (many of whose votes went to AfD) lost half its support: down from 6% to 3%. Germany’s once powerful liberal party the FDP once again failed to gain seats after polling 3%, as in 2011.
In terms of landtag seats the SPD-CDU coalition will be able to continue, though with a much smaller majority. Theoretically the two left of centre parties – SPD and Left – would also have (just) sufficient MPs for a coalition, but fear of association with communism still prevents the SPD from admitting its ideological kinship with Die Linke.
Despite its success in this election, the AfD would not have the numbers to form a governing coalition in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with the CDU. But this result will add to the pressure on Chancellor Merkel from within her own party, especially from the CDU’s Bavarian sister party CSU, in advance of next year’s federal elections.
A week after this shock advance, AfD achieved more modest results in local council elections across Lower Saxony, and this weekend sees elections to the Berlin landtag, again governed by a “grand coalition” between SPD and CDU. Here nationalists have traditionally been much weaker – the NPD polled only 2.5% in 2011. Again the CDU could be pushed into third place, though probably by the Greens, with the AfD not far behind.
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!
During the past year Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany – AfD) has been the most successful and rapidly growing nationalist party in Europe.
In 2015 control of AfD passed from its founders – who were essentially a liberal version of UKIP, focused on reform of (not withdrawal from) the EU – to a more radical faction who spoke openly about the need to protect German identity from mass immigration.
Though ‘moderate’ factions (including most of the party’s MEPs) had argued that this ‘extremism’ would be electorally disastrous, AfD has in fact become stronger, consistently winning seats in Germany’s regional/state parliaments, or länder.
Now the party’s most liberal elements are attempting a coup against the new leadership: at stake is whether AfD’s de facto leader Frauke Petry will be its figurehead and candidate for Chancellor against Angela Merkel in next year’s federal elections (scheduled for August-September 2017). The liberal faction would prefer Jörg Meuthen, who acts as co-spokesman with Frau Petry at national level, and was head of the AfD group in the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg.
A few weeks ago Herr Meuthen demanded the expulsion of one of his AfD colleagues in Baden-Württemberg, Wolfgang Gedeon, after it was found that Herr Gedeon had written a book four years ago (entitled Green Communism and the Dictatorship of Minorities) comparing the German state’s treatment of historians such as David Irving (and German writers such as the former leftist Horst Mahler) to the persecution of ‘dissidents’ by communist and other totalitarian regimes.
The book was denounced as ‘anti-semitic’, but when AfD’s group of Baden-Württemberg MPs met last week, the liberal faction was unable to secure the necessary two-thirds majority to expel Herr Gedeon. Although Herr Gedeon resolved the matter a day later by resigning voluntarily, Herr Meuthen and his supporters used the dispute as a pretext to break away and form their own parliamentary group, registering themselves as Alternative für Baden-Württemberg.
They have now taken the matter to AfD’s national ruling executive, demanding that this new group be recognised as the official party affiliate. In statements to the German press, the liberal faction have insisted: “I don’t know how you can be in two minds about this. Anyone who reads this can see it is clearly antisemitic. … We are Alternative for Germany, the others are antisemites for Germany.”
Herr Meuthen is now using the issue to force a showdown with Frau Petry, demanding that she should be locked out of the party’s national headquarters, even though she is seen as effectively the AfD leader.
Unless the dispute is resolved decisively and quickly, the only winner will be Germany’s pro-immigration Chancellor Angela Merkel.
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!
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.