Liberal knives are bring sharpened for one of the UK’s top businessmen, Tesco chairman John Allan, after it emerged that he told a retail industry conference: “If you are a white male, tough. You are an endangered species and you are going to have to work twice as hard.”
Speaking to an audience of executives at the Retail Week Live event on Thursday, Mr Allan said:
“For a thousand years men have got most of these jobs. The pendulum has swung very significantly the other way. If you are female and from an ethnic background and preferably both, then you are in an extremely propitious period.”
Speaking to a journalist from The Guardian the following day, Mr Allan sought to explain his comments as “intended to be humorous, a bit hyperbolic.”
However H&D suspects that a more grovelling apology will be required if Mr Allan is to keep his job…
Still reeling from defeat in last month’s Copeland by-election, Britain’s Labour Party faces another crisis in the inner-city constituency of Manchester Gorton, where a by-election is likely to be scheduled for May 4th. This time the problems mainly stem from the disastrous multiracial society which Labour and its Tory twin progressively imposed on this country after 1945.
Gorton’s MP, 86-year-old Gerald Kaufman, died on 19th February prompting an extraordinary outburst of vilification from his co-religionists at the Jewish Chronicle, who could not forgive a fellow Jew having opposed their organised pro-Israeli lobbying.
Part of the reason he had remained an MP for so long is that Kaufman and Labour Party bosses feared the outbreak of ethnic infighting that would dominate any selection process for his successor. Indeed the Gorton constituency’s Labour Party organisation was suspended by Labour’s national headquarters last year, due to allegations of intimidation and other malpractice linked to the Kaufman succession.
Labour’s National Executive is now in charge of the selection process: local members will have the final vote on March 22nd, but will have to choose from a shortlist imposed by the National Executive.
Two local Asian powerbrokers are among the main contenders. Pakistani machine boss Afzal Khan is a solicitor with practices in Manchester and Oldham. He was the first Asian Mayor of Manchester a few years ago, and has been an MEP since 2014. Meanwhile Luthfur Rahman is a Bangladeshi councillor who chairs the suspended Gorton Labour Party (even though its activities are presently suspended). The latter should not be confused with his near-namesake Lutfur Rahman, the notorious former Mayor of Tower Hamlets.
The Pakistani community in Gorton is five times the size of the Bangladeshi, so Khan must be favourite, but can expect a bruising battle which might unite enemies of the Khan machine. Only a week after Kaufman’s death, Khan’s office was attacked with bricks.
In June 2010 Cllr Rahman was among five Bangladeshis acquitted on judge’s instructions after an assault case against them collapsed at Manchester Crown Court. The case arose after an alleged attack on one Mokbul Ali in the prayer hall of the Shah Jalal mosque in Rusholme. Cllr Rahman and his fellow defendants accepted a bind over to “keep the peace”.
A year after his bind over, Cllr Rahman was crowned “Community Champion of the Year” at a glittering awards ceremony in London’s West End.
Possible White contenders for the Labour nomination include outgoing Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd, who served for fifteen years as MP for neighbouring Manchester Central: he is 67, but that still makes him two decades younger than the late MP!
Also in the frame are a couple of White Corbynistas: local councillor Julie Reid, and rising far-left star Sam Wheeler, who is locally-born but has to live down his education at Manchester Grammar School and Oxford.
Yesterday George Galloway was putting himself about in the constituency! Presumably he would stand only if Labour select a White anti-Corbynista, or if there is serious local hostility to an Asian machine candidate (i.e. Khan). He could also portray himself as the successor to Kaufman’s anti-Zionist principles. We might also see a rare outing for one (or more!) of the really fringe, Citizen Smith era far-left groups.
The Liberal Democrats have moved quickly to select a White candidate: former councillor Jackie Pearcey who came a decent second here in 2001 and 1997. She will doubtless push the Remain issue hard in the student/academic areas of the constituency where it might still have high salience almost a year on from the Brexit vote. But have students forgiven the Lib Dems for their tuition fees betrayal?
UKIP polled a surprisingly decent 8.2% here in 2015, no doubt helped by the Tories having an Asian candidate, who was beaten to runner-up by the Green. This was one of just four constituencies nationwide where the Greens finished second. (As in Gorton, the other three all had high student electorates in Bristol, Sheffield and Liverpool.)
The BNP has not contested Gorton since 1983. Richard Chadfield polled 1.1% for the NF in 1979 (in a Gorton with different boundaries). We are most unlikely to see a BNP, NF or other racial nationalist candidate here this time. None of the Gorton wards were among those contested by the BNP during the Griffin era.
The latest in a series of demonstrations outside Royal Holloway, University of London, scheduled for Saturday 4th March was postponed as a goodwill gesture due to another event taking place at the college this weekend.
These demonstrations are to highlight the disgraceful sacking of two college cleaning staff, dismissed for political activities which had no connection to their work.
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.
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance is one of the world’s best informed and most dedicated campaigners for racial realism and White survival.
In this video interview at the recent National Policy Institute conference, Jared Taylor explains how the immigration of White, English-speaking workers could help reverse some of the trends that are destroying America.
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.
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?
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!
The Home Office has officially admitted that one-third of all claims for political asylum are made by illegal immigrants or those who have stayed in the UK beyond their legal visa limit.
Rather than applying for asylum at the earliest opportunity – as one would expect from a genuine refugee – these people only raise the question of asylum when they have been apprehended by immigration officers, often while working illegally.
During the decade from 2004 to 2014, 231,100 asylum applications were received: of these, 83,912 were from people who had been apprehended by immigration staff, either as illegal entrants or as overstayers.
Surprisingly, almost one-quarter of these were nevertheless granted either asylum or an extended leave to remain.
Even Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, admitted to The Times:
“The very principle of seeking asylum is that you feel persecuted at the time you arrive, not saying you feel persecuted after arriving illegally or for different reasons and then remaining in the country until you are apprehended.”
Official figures for 2015-2016 show that the largest number of UK entry visas granted during 2015-2016 were to visitors from China and India/Pakistan. There were 92,715 visas granted to Chinese visitors, and 92,327 to India and Pakistan combined. While there would be many legitimate Chinese tourists, students or business visitors among their total (which was a 22% increase on the previous year), one wonders about the 14,231 visas granted to Nigerians (though this was a 25% decrease on the previous year, partly because of a crackdown on illegals).
By contrast far smaller numbers of visas (whether for tourism, study or work) were granted to travellers from White countries: 21,605 to Australians; 34,276 to visitors from the USA;
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.