The far right’s favourite batshit preacher – big mates with Laurence Fox, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson (no relation) – has decided to up sticks and quit the UK for pastures new. Or, rather, a parish new, though he won’t yet tell us where it is.
He is of course, a ‘reverend’ in the sense that when he was turned down for ordination by the C of E, he found an obscure Scandinavian Catholic sect, the Nordic Catholic Church, to perform the necessaries.
Robinson has no love of Islam, to put it mildly, but we have to say it’s still a stretch to believe that he’s leaving, as he claims, because “the Mohammedans have put out a fatwah to get us all killed…”
We can only wish his new flock well. They’ll need it.
But, in the meantime, a question: Robinson has recently been crowdfunding to buy Torsa, an island off the west coast of Scotland, to prevent it falling into the hands of ‘Islamic hate preachers’ and turn it into a Christian retreat. “A fiver for the Kingdom” he pleads.
He needed £1.5 million and, to date, has raised £130k. So, on this matter – which he didn’t quite touch upon in his ‘I quit’ online broadcast today – we simply ask: what’s going to happen to this project?
Adrian Davies, the far right’s favourite barrister, recently hosted his fellow lawyer, the leading American nazi Sam Dickson, on a private tour of the UK. When riots broke out in Manchester city centre, Davies and Dickson were in the thick of it. Being in their 60s and 70s respectively, they weren’t scuffling with police, merely happening upon the violence while leaving an art gallery. Dickson was pictured (below, left foreground) in a police ‘kettle’ outside the art gallery.
But it turns out that Dickson hadn’t flown all the way from Georgia just to visit art galleries.
One stop on his tour was in Yorkshire, where he and Davies showed up drinking beer and discussing strategy with prominent nazis including British Democrats leader, Andrew Brons (the ex-MEP who started his jackbooted odyssey in Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement where he pondered the ethics of synagogue arson), and Brons’s former BNP colleagues Mark Cotterill and Peter Rushton who run the self-styled ‘intellectual’ racist journal Heritage & Destiny.
Like Brons, Dickson’s far right activism dates back to the ‘60s. He has been a regular speaker at some of the world’s top racist shindigs, including the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review, American Renaissance, and the secretive Charles Martel Society (of which Dickson is a trustee).
For many years Dickson was especially closely associated with the nazi apologist David Irving, and regularly hosted him at one of the wealthy lawyer’s properties in Florida. In 1992 Dickson and Klan lawyer Kirk Lyons toured the UK speaking at meetings organised by Irving.
But a few years ago, Dickson and Irving had a serious falling out, rumoured to be linked to Irving’s notoriously lax attitude to other people’s money and property. Though Irving is now crippled and forced into retirement by a stroke, it’s not thought that Dickson visited his former friend at his Notting Hill flat.
Dickson was among many racists and fascists who gathered in St Petersburg in 2015 for an ‘International Russian Conservative Forum’ sponsored by groups linked to Putin’s intelligence service. In 2017, he attended the notorious Charlottesville rally that brought together nazis and Trumpists.
If the new UK government is serious about keeping out far right extremists, Sam Dickson should have been near the top of their list. His close colleague Jared Taylor is already banned from the UK and the entire Schengen area, covering most European countries. Dickson has an even murkier record than Taylor as one of America’s most influential nazis and Holocaust deniers.
Though his presence during this country’s most serious far right violence for years was undoubtedly coincidental, serious questions should be asked at the Home Office as to why such a man entered the country.
Photo, left to right: Andrew Brons, Sam Dickson, Unknown man, Mark Cotterill, Adrian Davies, Peter Rushton.
Well, there you go then! That seems to be the conclusion of at least some on the far right regarding arrests and charges arising from the Notting Hill Carnival. Which ‘there’ this data is meant to lead us to is far from clear.
There you go then… assemble a huge, predominantly black crowd and there will be crime, perhaps. But then we can’t recall anyone saying any different. Crowds of any colour mix, especially ones with liberal amounts of alcohol in circulation, do have a tendency not so much to generate trouble as to draw together likely sources of misbehaviour.
Whether a crowd has pre-loaded on Tennent’s and Teacher’s, Stella and Stoli or Red Stripe and Red Leg doesn’t seem to make an awful lot of difference.
What may well be intended, in fact, is more of a ‘There you go then… two-tier policing!’ The innuendo certainly seems to be emanating from the same online dry white whiners who have so eagerly latched on to this almost meaningless slogan – the bleating heart of the internet, if you like. But how does a stack of arrests in Notting Hill support an assertion of double standards?
Tippy-tapping away in his latest EU funk-hole, Stephen Lennon (posting as ‘Tommy Robinson’) reckons he can have it both ways – it’s evidence of both criminal ethnic types and selective policing all in one bundle. We should not be too surprised by this. If there were a Yaxley family motto it would surely be ‘Amamus consumere tamen habere crustum’ – roughly ‘we like to eat yet still have our cake’.
If he wants it, he should get in fast. Once R Slicker (the next Conservative Party leader) pollutes an honours list with Lord Johnson of Partygate, Boris will adopt the motto in a flash. Though come to think of it, now that he is officially Irish, perhaps Lennon would prefer the legend in Gaelic (which is, sadly, beyond our linguistic skills).
Anyway, back to the Tommy tippy-tapping, “Notting Hill Carnival 2 day event seen 8 stabbings,” howls The Fugitive semi-literately. “A dozen sexual assaults. 3 guns seized. 50 police officers injured.” So there you have complaint number one – lawlessness with a lot of non-white people involved. And complaint number two? “Keir Starmer ignores all that, takes a swipe at the protesting English again, this time calling everyone ‘nazis’!”
Oh dear. This is a glaring example of that increasingly common 21st Century phenomenon: a phone that’s smarter than its owner.
We make no excuses for the criminality at the carnival – especially the violence – and we’re sure Keir Starmer doesn’t either. Every stabbing is a despicable act. But we do need some kind of context for the figures. No one knows how many people took part in the Notting Hill Carnival, but for the past two decades or so the Mayor of London’s office has attached a baseline figure of one million. Several sources report that this year – a warm and sunny one – saw more like two million attendees.
That is a simply enormous crowd. In other, perhaps more excitable countries than ours, we would not be surprised to hear that a gathering on such a scale had resulted in a stampede, with dozens crushed underfoot. In Britain, it’s mostly a case of Keep Calm and Carry On.
There was, indeed, crime. Some of it nasty. But we don’t recall any reports of mobs screaming racial abuse, charging police lines, throwing bricks, looting shops and setting fire to vehicles and buildings, including (for goodness’ sake!) a library and community job-seeking hub. In short, the people at the Notting Hill Carnival were mostly just having a nice, laid-back time. They were not staging hate-filled riots, like those scumbags who did so while chanting ‘Tommy Robinson’ in various towns and cities.
In total about 330 people were arrested across the span of the carnival, which rather makes a mockery of the assertion of far right megamouths that police are too timid or ‘woke’ to arrest black people and their lefty pals. (For ‘lefty’ read white people who mix happily with other races).
“Aha!” cries an imaginary voice that sounds, nonetheless, rather like Nigel Farage. “But more people than that were arrested at the rio… er… the protests, and there were only a few thousand people at those, so the proportion of the crowd arrested was much bigger. So it is two-tier policing.”
Really, only one thing needs saying to establish that this train of thought is some Southern Rail old knacker that is going to break down before it has finished pulling away from Platform 1. The vast majority of people who went to the carnival did so to dance in the street, dress up as goodness knows what or munch on a freshly fried samosa. The majority of people who went to the riots did so in order to… er… riot. Of course the proportions arrested will be wildly different.
So, Searchlight is completely writing off the idea of two-tier policing, then? Well, not exactly. We do in fact get the impression that there’s some picking and choosing going on – just not in the way that the panty-wetters of the far right would have you think.
As far away as Pakistan (!) a man has been arrested for publishing the invented Arab-sounding name that was circulated online as being that of the Southport murderer, and which undoubtedly helped to fuel the anti-Muslim riots. There’s surely little doubt that this arrest is at the UK’s behest. But at least one large-circulation Pakistani daily has stated that its contacts within the investigating bureau believe the website involved, C3N, merely cocked up.
This makes sense. C3N is what is known in publishing as an ‘aggregator’. That is to say, it does no investigative journalism itself but scours the worldwide web for stories and repackages them. This gives the site owners a (hopefully) lucrative advertising platform without the need to employ any real journalists.
Not even the British end of the arrest seems to have any faith that a hard-core bad ‘un has been nicked in Pakistan. The BBC reports that its (presumably UK) police sources believe that C3N’s action was “an error, not intentional”. C3N certainly didn’t invent the name circulated. ‘Walk back the cat’ and you can see that the name appeared on UK social media quite some time before C3N published it.
Does this let C3N off the hook? Not entirely, because it published the name recklessly, with no attempt to validate it, in extremely volatile circumstances. We cannot be sure that the man – one of the website’s three owners – will face trial over the mess, but it does look likely.
How do we see any two-tier policing in this? Because right-wing rentagob Katie Hopkins did exactly the same thing – published the fake name without any attempt to check that it was correct, leaving her many witless followers to believe that a Muslim had killed the Southport schoolgirls. And has ‘Hatie Katie’ appeared in court over this? We don’t recall seeing her name listed in that connection.
Or take the case of the Northern Ireland loyalist who has been arrested, charged and remanded until 20 September over an online post calling to “stop the spread of evil Islam”. You may say that the word ‘evil’ is particularly inflammatory, but you might also think that, otherwise, there’s not a great deal of difference between that post and one by Reclaim Party leader Laurence Fox saying that “We need to remove Islam from Great Britain. Completely and entirely.”
Some would argue that that Fox’s demand is the worse of the two, because what he wants would clearly require violence – the idea that all of GB’s Muslims would happily emigrate of their own accord is laughable. Have we seen ‘Looza’ in court over this incitement to hatred? If so, the report has eluded Searchlight.
We don’t really need to find comparisons for Stephen Lennon’s lance corporal, Daniel Thomas (aka ‘Danny Tommo’), because his message to his 68,000 followers that “It has to go off in different cities” and that “Every city has to go up” would undoubtedly have added to the sentences already received by many small-fry rioters. ‘Tommo’ even organised the Whitehall protest that saw other boneheads jailed. But has he been brought to book? Not that we can see.
The wretched reptile that is Nigel Farage is employing some calculated sophistry to disavow his own sins, but we’re really not sure how he’s getting away with it. After pooh-poohing the idea that the Southport murders were, as the police has stated “non-terror related”, the Reform UK Ltd owner added “I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us.”
Despite his protestations that this was a question, not an assertion, and that he had not actually deployed the specific word ‘liars’, no reasonable person could doubt that he was indeed accusing the police of being exactly that – liars. The suggestion that the authorities were not telling the truth about the Southport schoolgirl stabbings was like throwing a bucket of petrol on a smouldering fag-end. Has he even been questioned by the police about this? Not as far as we can tell.
As for ‘Tommy Robinson’, we could write a whole extra feature about his status as a riddle wrapped in an enigma nested in a sun-lounger. Suffice it to say that some days it feels like half of ‘the establishment’ wants him behind bars, the other half wants him on the loose, and the two trip each other up at every opportunity. Why any of the establishment should prefer not to see him picking oakum is an intriguing question.
So, if you want to talk about ‘two-tier policing’, Kameraden, instead of desperately trying to conjure up fantasies about how white people are being persecuted by the government, Crown Prosecution Service and police, why not ask yourself why the small fry (or, as loosely Irish Lennon would probably have it, The Little People) are being sent down in droves over the riots, while the ‘influencers’ with big social media followings seem to enjoy immunity.
Perhaps the man whom the knuckle-draggers have dubbed ‘Two-Tier Keir’ should have a go at explaining not why the riots needed putting down (which they plainly did) but why it’s always the poor bloody infantry who get prosecuted and not the far-right generals. Are their Twitter followings really that intimidating?
Photos, clockwise from top left: Nigel Farage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (‘Tommy Robinson’), ‘Danny Tommo’, Laurence Fox, Katie Hopkins, .
BRYAN WALL warns that, despite low polling numbers for far-right groups in Ireland’s recent local and European elections, we must remain alert to their growing numbers
This year’s election results in Ireland show that the country is not immune from far-right politics. Held on 7 June, the local elections and European Parliament (EU) elections attracted over 100 candidates from far-right parties or those linked to them.
Support for these parties in Ireland has historically been low to non-existent. However, the far right has become more vocal and organised across the country in the past five years. Arson attacks and blockades on proposed accommodation for asylum-seekers have become common, alongside calls on social media for all migrants to be deported.
Far-right rallies are now regular events, where there are calls for the government to be overthrown, as well as routine attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community and women’s rights. These rallies are attended by between a handful and a few thousand.
In the months leading up to the elections, the largest opposition party, Sinn Féin, had been expected to do extremely well. Polling showed it consistently attracting support at the expense of the traditional vote-getters in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. But in March the party’s long-held position on immigration became better known when its President Mary Lou McDonald stated, “Sinn Féin is not for open borders”, the latter term a common dog whistle among the far right.
The result was an almost instantaneous decline in the polls, undoing months of rapid gains and sometimes dominance over Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This ensured that on polling day the latter two did better than expected, with the political status quo remaining largely upheld.
From late 2023 onwards the Farmers’ Alliance, Ireland First, the Irish Freedom Party (IFP), The Irish People, and the National Party (both branches) all announced their intention to run candidates on an anti-immigration platform. Their differences are minimal and centre mostly around definitions of Irish identity and occasional economic disagreements, with the exception of the National Party.
Two parties, same name
In the case of the latter, a falling out between its two leaders, Justin Barrett and James Reynolds, resulted in both men asserting leadership of the party and their respective acolytes claiming the National Party name for themselves. Applications to the Electoral Commission by both men to amend the party’s registration details, including its leader, were rejected and both factions ran candidates under the same party name.
As a result, voters in some constituencies had the choice of voting for one of two candidates seemingly running under the National Party name, but following different leaderships. For example, this was the case of the EU elections, where in the Dublin Constituency Barrett’s wife Rebecca ran against Reynolds’ deputy Patrick Quinlan.
Overall, at 49.4% turnout was lower than in previous years, but continued a trend set in 2019 and 2014 when turnouts were 50.2% and 51.6% respectively. The two establishment parties maintained their relative electoral success at the expense of Sinn Féin, while the left made no substantial gains.
This trend also saw far-right groups and individuals largely fail in their electoral ambitions. Some, such as Andy Heasman — an admitted former drug dealer — of The Irish People who received just 140 first-preference votes, struggled to gain more than a few dozen votes.
Others, however, were elected, namely: Malachy Steenson, an independent candidate in the North Inner City constituency in Dublin; Quinlan, the candidate for the Reynolds’ branch of the National Party in the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart constituency; Gavin Pepper, an independent candidate in the Ballymun-Finglas constituency; Tom McDonnell, an independent but founder of far-right Éire Saor in County Kildare; and Glen Moore, a contender for the IFP in the Palmerstown-Fonthill constituency.
In the cases of Moore, Pepper, Quinlan and Steenson, they gained success in the capital, Dublin. All men are regular attendees and speakers at anti-asylum-seeker rallies. After his election Steenson declared his success “a fabulous result for the nationalist movement in Ireland, for the people of Ireland, we’re taking our nation back”.
Of interest to UK readers will be the election of Moore, whose party leader Hermann Kelly, was a press officer for Nigel Farage, when the former UKIP leader was an MEP. Kelly is currently a press officer for right-wing Romanian MEP Cristian Terheș and at a demographics conference in 2021 in Budapest is known to have mixed with anti-gender rights agitators.
Demography is a regular talking point in the Irish far-right milieu, and Kelly is no different, having previously declared Ireland to be in “demographic peril” because of the “LGBT lobby” and its “barren, sterile lifestyles and ideology”, arguing that it “seeks not equality but privileges”.
Like Kelly, McDonnell has voiced opinions on Irish demography: “If we don’t have women breeding, we die out as a breed. We don’t want that to happen.” After a backlash in response to his comments across the country, McDonnell told the Sunday World that “we need to produce more children of our own origin, of our own people” and that “Khazarian Jews” are attempting to replace Irish people.
Concerning shift
The election of these right-wingers represents only a small percentage of councillors in Ireland. But the success of the far-right groups illustrates a shift and should not be underestimated. Given the sheer number of far-right candidates standing for election, the wider political wing of the far right in Ireland could be seen to have failed.
The election of even one should be viewed as troublesome, given the increasing boldness and violence of the far right in Ireland. However, the election of five is indicative of a major problem.
Add to that the fact that Ireland First’s Derek Blighe picked up 25,071 first‑preference votes as candidate in the Ireland South constituency in the EU elections. This was far short of the quota required to gain office, yet more than 25,000 people chose to vote for the leader of a party who supports the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory and who claims that Ireland is under “assault” from “fake refugees”. His views are well known and him polling these numbers represents a serious shift in Irish politics.
Photos: Top row:elected councillors Independent Tom McDonnell and Glen Moore of the Irish Freedom Party (far left and centre), and failed candidate IFP party leader Hermann Kelly (left); Bottom row: rival Nationalist Party faction leaders Justin Barrett (far left) and James Reynolds (centre), and Reynolds’ deputy, Patrick Quinlan (right), who was elected as a councillor
This article first appeared in the Summer 2024 issue of Searchlight
Scaremongering about a so-called left threat failed to panic French voters. Instead, writes ROGER PEARCE, the majority set aside their differences, voting against Le Pen’s toxic xenophobia and so stopping her taking a step closer to the presidency
As part of her effort to disguise a reinvention of French fascism, Marine Le Pen renamed the National Front (FN) as the National Rally (Rassemblement National, RN) in 2018, but after six years of her strategy of dédiabolisation (“de‑demonisation”) it was anti-fascists, in a historic parliamentary election on 7 July, who rallied to defeat her and very likely end her hopes of the presidency.
Following years of division, French democrats agreed to set aside their differences long enough to agree on the need to defeat Le Pen’s toxic xenophobia. And, within days of her defeat, Le Pen began dropping her mask of moderation, choosing to ally with a pro-Russian group in the European Parliament.
Le Pen started the election campaign by appearing to succeed in uniting the French far right, patching up a long-running family feud with her niece, Marion Maréchal. For several years, Maréchal has been French fascism’s ambassador to both the US new right and Russia’s Vladimir Putin autocracy. In February 2018, she was guest speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held in a Washington suburb, which brings together libertarians, Trumpists, big business and redneck David Duke fans.
In those days, CPAC’s organisers were able to claim that Maréchal represented a pro-business, “classical liberal” tendency inside the French right, in contrast to her aunt and what was then the FN, which had adopted a more traditional European statism.
This split seemed to harden at the end of 2021 when Maréchal allied with the Islamophobic journalist Éric Zemmour to form a new party, Reconquête, aiming to replace Le Pen’s RN as the main force on the French far right. Maréchal and Zemmour were eager for their new party to become Putin’s closest French allies. Just before her visit to Washington in 2018, Maréchal and other FN dissidents created ISSEP, a private university in Lyon. She set out to build close connections between ISSEP and Russia, visiting St Petersburg University and appointing pro-Putin lecturers.
She also recruited prominent figures in the Anglo-American far right, including Paul Gottfried (once a regular speaker for US racist organisations such as Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and Peter Brimelow’s VDARE), and Raheem Kassam, former senior adviser to Nigel Farage.
Opportunist pacts
Although Reconquête had run out of steam by the time this year’s elections were called, Le Pen realised that her niece had greater appeal than she had to middle and upper-middle class voters.
At the start of the election campaign, Le Pen seemed to be justifying an old‑fashioned Marxist analysis of fascism. In defence of their wealth and privileges, the French bourgeoisie seemed prepared to hold their noses and vote for the type of crude xenophobia they might pretend to deplore at Parisian dinner tables.
And for a few weeks the house journals of supposedly “liberal” middle class Europeans and Americans seemed to be rallying round: perhaps Le Pen was not so bad compared with the “threat” of left‑wing tax rises? Perhaps we should all just ignore her political heritage, turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to her toxic rhetoric, and see her as just another conservative?
Le Pen took two important steps towards sealing this deal. First, she dealt a terminal blow to Reconquête, tempting Maréchal and others back into alliance with the RN and leaving Zemmour isolated. Then she encouraged a split in the main French conservative party, which in recent years has been called the Republicans.
Their leader, Éric Ciotti, took his followers into a pact with RN. The Republican organisation was left in confusion, with the anti-Ciotti faction, who wanted to maintain a conservative party untainted by fascism, for a time locked out of their own party offices. The courts eventually reinstated Ciotti as nominal leader of the Republicans, but it is only a matter of time before the party formally disintegrates.
Election shifts
French parliamentary elections are held in two rounds, and at the first round it seemed that Le Pen’s strategy was succeeding, building up expectations that the RN would at the very least be the largest party in the National Assembly and might even (helped by Maréchal, Ciotti and other new conservative allies) obtain a parliamentary majority.
Having stood down in several constituencies in each other’s favour, the RN won 37 seats outright in the first round, with one for its far-right conservative allies, winning more than 10.6 million votes (33.2%). This was an astonishing increase on the 4.2 million polled by the RN in 2022.
The remaining Reconquête candidates were now obviously irrelevant and took less than 1%.
However, it is important to remember the effect of different electoral systems: in the second round of the 2022 presidential election, when offered a direct choice between Emmanuel Macron and Le Pen, 13.3 million French voters backed Le Pen versus 18.8 million backing Macron.
Under the French system, any candidate whose first-round support totals more than 12.5% of the electorate, can stand in the second round, which means that second rounds can include three or even four candidates. This year, Le Pen was counting on hostility between President Macron’s liberal centrists and the notoriously divided French left.
What she did not expect was that personal ambition and factional differences would be set aside, in the most successful anti-fascist electoral mobilisation Europe has seen. Socialist and green factions had already united in the first round under the apt title New Popular Front, and won 32 seats in that round, polling 28.2%.
But most observers (and certainly Le Pen and her “Prime Minister-designate” Jordan Bardella) thought it would be impossible for the New Popular Front to reach agreement with the President’s party Ensemble.
Le Pen counted on Ensemble and either the left or green candidates standing against each other in the second round, or on their respective voters abstaining in large numbers. Instead, there was a widespread anti-fascist electoral pact, and a high turnout, especially among young voters determined to stop Le Pen.
Where the anti-Pen candidate was from the left or greens, and even if the anti-fascist standard bearer was from the hardest of hard left factions, centrists rallied behind them, and vice versa.
The outcome was that Le Pen’s party won only 88 extra seats in the second round, with a further 16 for her conservative allies. Far from being the largest group in the new Assembly, the combined far right has 142 seats compared to 180 for the New Popular Front, 159 for Ensemble, and 39 for those Republicans who refused to follow their leader into a Faustian pact with fascism.
A further 57 seats are held by a variety of locally based independents and miscellaneous factions who refuse to ally formally with any of the main groups. But from the moment the exit poll was broadcast on the evening of 7 July, it was obvious that Le Pen and Bardella had been defeated.
Risky gamble
Exactly how France will be governed with this divided Assembly is not yet clear. Having won a great victory over fascism, all of the centrist, green and left factions have a continuing heavy responsibility.
But, despite their bold rhetoric, it seems obvious that Le Pen and her RN colleagues recognise that their strategy has failed. Whereas before the election it seemed possible that she would continue heading towards the mainstream right, and perhaps form a pact with Italy’s “post-fascist” Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Le Pen has instead taken the RN into the new “Patriots for Europe” group headed by the blatantly authoritarian and pro-Moscow Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
She is gambling on a Putin victory in Ukraine and on the collapse of Western European democracy. That gamble looks far more risky, now that a reinvigorated Democratic Party is rallying behind US presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
But French anti-fascists know that (so far) they have only won a partial victory, on which they must continue to build so that the Le Pen dynasty and its poisonous politics can be destroyed forever at the 2027 presidential election.
This article first appeared in the Summer 2024 issue of Searchlight
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.
