Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:
“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances

Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:
“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:
“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:
“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.
“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.”

The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset”

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.”

On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards.
“Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991.

Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day.

A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that:
“The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991

Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature.

The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law.

The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Neville Nagler

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter



Farage set to back new party

Nigel Farage (right) with UKIP’s former Scottish leader David Coburn who joined him in resigning over new leader Gerard Batten’s shift to an anti-Islam agenda

Following his long-expected resignation from UKIP – the party he led for nine years including its greatest successes at the 2009 and 2014 European elections and the 2015 General Election – Nigel Farage gave the first indication yesterday that he is planning to endorse a new breakaway party.

During an interview with the Sun on Sunday, Farage said:
“There is huge demand for a party that’s got real clarity on this issue. You can see and hear the frustration welling up out there. It’s clear the political elite want to stop Brexit in its tracks and the prime minister doesn’t have the strength or inclination to see this through.
“…If the government goes back on its word and betrays the millions of people who voted for Brexit then we need a party prepared to stand up and fight for it. I’m fully prepared for article 50 to be extended or revoked and if that happens, I will re-enter the fray.”

Rather than backing any of the existing post-UKIP parties, Farage said he is likely to support one that is presently being registered by UKIP’s former economics spokesman Catherine Blaiklock, who wrote for the Salisbury Review before Christmas explaining her conclusion that “UKIP is dead”.

Catherine Blaiklock, former UKIP spokesman, is launching The Brexit Party

Ms Blaiklock began the process of registering this party with the Electoral Commission on January 11th, which leaves very little time to complete the process if we were to face a snap general election, or if delays to Brexit entail our involvement in the European Parliamentary elections on May 23rd.

It had been assumed that UK MEPs, including Farage himself, would have left by then and their seats would be redistributed among the EU’s remaining member states. But as with so much about the Brexit process, even this is now uncertain.

Farage has indicated he would be prepared to stand again in May, and might also be tempted to stand in a likely parliamentary by-election in Peterborough, which will occur if Labour MP Fiona Onasanya fails to overturn her conviction for lying about a traffic offence.

Anne Marie Waters on the by-election campaign trail with former BNP election guru Eddy Butler: her party For Britain has now become an affiliate of the largest European alliance of anti-immigration parties, alongside Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini.

UKIP’s activists and donors would then be left with a dilemma: should they follow their old leader; stick with their new leader; or opt for one of the three other main alternatives offered by leading figures who have quit UKIP during the past year or two – Anne Marie Waters’ anti-Islamic For Britain Movement; the Democrats and Veterans Party led by John Rees-Evans; or the Social Democratic Party endorsed by MEP and former Express journalist Patrick O’Flynn.

For Britain was recently accepted as an affiliate of the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom, which includes Marine Le Pen’s ‘National Rally’ (RN), formerly the National Front; the Austrian Freedom Party; the Flemish Vlaams Belang; and the Italian anti-immigration party Lega headed by Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini.


Political prisoner Monika Schaefer now back home in Canada

Canadian citizen and free debate champion Monika Schaefer is now back home in Canada having spent most of 2018 as a political prisoner in Germany, held under the Federal Republic’s notorious debate-denial laws.

Just a few weeks before her incarceration Monika had celebrated the 2017 Winter Solstice with friends and comrades including Lady Michèle Renouf, the late Werner Keweloh, Joe Fallisi, Guillaume Nichols, Allen Newport, Marc-Henri, and H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton (see video above).

Her brother Alfred remains a prisoner of the Federal Republic, but is confident that truth will prevail and that Germany and Europe will once again be free. Alfred’s 64th birthday is on January 30th. He can be contacted at his prison address:

Alfred Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Stadelheimer Str 12
81549, Munich (München)
GERMANY

Horst Mahler – 83 this month

Fellow political prisoner Horst Mahler will celebrate his 83rd birthday on January 23rd in prison in Brandenburg near Berlin. He has just had a second leg amputated. The operation went well, but it seems that everything is done to prevent a successful recovery of the patient.

Apparently one or more motion detectors were installed in Horst’s hospital room. They are connected with garish lights that start at his slightest movement. His room door must not be closed, so that he has not slept sufficiently for days due to the background noise. In addition, Horst Mahler is tied to the bed and is guarded around the clock by a prison officer.

How is an 83-year-old (on 23 January Horst becomes 83 years old), both legs amputated, supposed to flee? Complaints against the obviously purposeful sleep deprivation remained so far unsuccessful.

Horst Mahler can be contacted at his prison address:

Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg A.D. Havel,
Inhaftierter: Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
14772 Brandenburg
GERMANY

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

Yet again illegal immigration is in the headlines, and yet again the British government seems unable to protect our borders.

Yet this time no-one can blame the European Union, indeed the blame lies in Whitehall (and to some extent indirectly in Washington).

The latest waves of immigrants heading across the English Channel are disproportionately Iranian. Why?

There is no human rights crisis in Iran and no war displacing ‘refugees’. The push and pull factors here are twofold.

Firstly there is an economic impulse. As part of his pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi foreign policy (so far undisturbed by the Saudi authorities’ brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October), President Donald Trump has scrapped the nuclear deal previously welcomed by most western governments (including the UK) and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

In characteristic fashion the U.S. government has bullied its allies (including the UK) into collaborating with these sanctions. Inevitably this has had economic effects, so some Iranians have decided to become ‘refugees’ (i.e. economic migrants).

These migrants know also that for political reasons the British government automatically grants refugee status to Iranians the moment they arrive on our soil: there is no requirement to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. Iranians are never returned home by our immigration authorities, whatever the circumstances.

Thus the craziness multiplies: a poorly thought-out Trump policy is compounded by a propagandistic ‘human rights’ policy. The losers are long-suffering British taxpayers, as the present crisis effectively signals a green light not only to Iranians but to a wide range of potential economic migrants and ‘people smugglers’ who will be encouraged to take their chances across the English Channel.

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Vincent Reynouard at one of his many court hearings

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called “Holocaust”, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning “Holocaust”-denial.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

Farage quits UKIP

UKIP leader Gerard Batten (left) with EDL founder Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (alias ‘Tommy Robinson’) whose increasingly close relationship with the party has now prompted Nigel Farage to resign.

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage quit the party this week, after another row with the current chairman Gerard Batten. Farage was a founder member of UKIP, formed by homosexual libertarian Dr. Alan Sked in 1993. Before UKIP they had been in the Anti-Federalist League, and previously the Conservative Party, which they quit in 1992.

Farage was firmly against Batten’s plan’s to bring former BNP member and EDL founder Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (alias ‘Tommy Robinson’) into UKIP, and to focus more on being anti-Islam than anti-EU.

Former National Front official Martyn Heale (right) – a UKIP councillor from 2013 to 2017 – with Nigel Farage

However, when Farage was UKIP leader he let a number of former NF officials join the party without any problem – including Martyn Heale, the then UKIP chairman of the Thanet South constituency where Nigel Farage was the party’s candidate at the 2016 general election. Heale was a leading member of the National Front in London in the 1970s, and its Hammersmith branch organiser in 1978.

Subsequently Heale spent over twenty years in the Conservative Party, including three years as Chairman of Ramsgate Conservative Association, before joining UKIP about fourteen years ago. He was a UKIP county councillor for the Ramsgate division in Kent from 2013 to 2017. In August this year Heale applied to rejoin the Conservative Party, but his application was rejected as being liable to bring the party into disrepute, despite his earlier two decades as a Tory.

Nigel Farage has always denied claims that his father Guy Farage had himself been a member of the NF in the 1970s.

Martyn Heale as a London NF activist

Rather more serious than this row over alleged ‘extremism’ is UKIP’s continuing identity crisis. The party will surely struggle now to fight a serious campaign, if Theresa May’s Brexit troubles lead to a general election next year. Realistically there isn’t much time for Farage and his financial backer Arron Banks to start a new party, and none of the splinter groups that broke away from UKIP during the past year or two, such as the For Britain Movement or Democrats & Veterans, have really built up momentum.

Are we heading back to a period of two-party politics? And if so, will this be an interlude before the emergence of a radical anti-immigration party?

Demonstration marks 90th birthday of political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck

On the occasion of Ursula Haverbeck’s 90th birthday, six hundred German Nationalists paraded through the North German town of Bielefeld where the brave Revisionist is currently incarcerated for the expression of her non-violent views questioning the “Holocaust”. Speakers at the concluding rally included our friends Thorsten Heise and Nikolei Nerling, the Volkslehrer.

Letters and cards of support can be addressed to: Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Senne, Bielefeld, D-33649, Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Collins gets it wrong again

Matthew Collins is a middle-aged thug from South London who in his youth was briefly associated with the National Front. He has turned this connection into a lifelong career as an ‘anti-fascist expert’, courted by sections of the liberal media because he is probably the only person of working-class origins they have ever encountered, and they are prepared to overlook his former pastime of poisoning fish in a local primary school.

Unfortunately for his employers, Mr Collins – like the Dick Emery character above – has a sad habit of getting things wrong.

His recent article for an anti-fascist website, after an incomprehensible paragraph about the London Forum, makes a series of errors (as well as an inexplicable reference to ‘homophobia’, which might reflect Mr Collins’ sensitivity on this subject, following his close friendship with Ian Anderson thirty years or so ago).

No-one in our circles has accused Stead Steadman of being responsible for the sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting on October 20th. We knew almost instantly who was responsible, partly thanks to security failures by Mr Collins’ employers.

On October 20th Mr Steadman was at the Traditional Britain Group conference (having made this arrangement long before our event was scheduled) – not as Mr Collins asserts in the Netherlands.

A young Matthew Collins (centre) on a National Front paper sale.

Weirdly Mr Collins posts a mocking caption on a photograph of Mr Steadman, describing him as “sad-faced” during the NF’s march to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.

Perhaps Mr Collins and his ilk view the centenary of the First World War – a true European Holocaust that left 20 million dead and 21 million wounded – as a cause for merriment. Decent Britons, including Mr Steadman and the NF marchers, are understandably saddened.

Peter Rushton was not a “McKenzie friend” for Alison Chabloz’s court case, he was a defence witness. Ms Chabloz did not have a “McKenzie friend”, she was professionally and ably represented by barrister Adrian Davies, as Mr Collins would know if he consulted prosecution witness Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, who was cross-examined by Mr Davies to considerable effect!

Perhaps guided by wiser heads, Mr Collins cunningly edits his quotation from our article exposing Alison Chabloz as a saboteur. He does this to avoid mentioning the name of ‘Sophie Johnson’, the Chabloz puppet whose role as informant was inadvertently exposed by Hope not Hate themselves. Giving away your sources is not good for ‘anti-fascist’ Shoah business.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

U.S. Mid-Term Election Results Mixed, But Demographics Doom Republicans

(by James Knight for H&D)

The mid-term elections took place on November 6 in the United States. They were seen – correctly – as a referendum on President Donald Trump. In general, the results point to some trouble ahead for Trump. Despite a very strong economy, complete with low unemployment, Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. They are now down by about 37 seats to the Democrats. On the other hand, the party increased its control of the Senate by one and now hold a two-seat lead in that chamber of Congress.

 

Most parties in power get defeated – often quite badly – in the mid-term elections. Trump’s losses are somewhat less that those suffered by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama in 1994, 2006 and 2010 respectively. Democrats had a significant advantage in fund raising as almost all of Hollywood and the ultra-rich US elite support “The Resistance” against Trump. And nearly every single close election recount had Democrats winning over Republicans, which was almost certainly due to election stealing/tampering (more common in the US than many suppose).

The demographics of the election show the usual breakdowns. Non-whites voted for Democrats with the following percentages:

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

Actually, Trump did slightly better among non-whites in 2016 than previous Republicans such as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Among whites, Republicans only won by a margin of 54% to 44%. White men broke 60% to 39% for Republicans while white women were split 49% to 49%. The fact that so many whites decided to vote for Democrats is a big warning sign for Republicans. For years, the Republican party has been drifting toward becoming the party of white people. With roughly 80% of non-whites voting Democrats, and with the electorate getting less and less white with every election, the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Unless Trump can get the white vote up to 60% Republican in 2020, he will likely lose reelection.

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

Working class whites in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave the election to Trump in 2016. This was due to his stance on issues such as immigration and trade and his populist rhetoric on economic issues. This base has been slowly drifting away from Trump in the last two years.

Likewise, the Dissident Right, which also came out for Trump in 2016, has been disappointed with his performance in the last two year. Ann Coulter routinely calls out Trump on Twitter for his tough talk but inaction on a border wall, birthright citizenship and stopping caravans of illegal immigrants. Gregory Hood of American Renaissance is even more blunt:

“President Trump has governed like a moderate, while speaking like a hardliner—the worst possible combination. He has done so unnecessarily. One struggles to recapture the sense of the 2016 campaign. In retrospect, it seems like something out of Homeric times, with almost supernatural forces intervening in the affairs of men. Everything had to break Donald Trump’s way; Hillary Clinton had to make every possible mistake. Somehow, everything happened exactly the way it had to, leading to one of the most remarkable upsets in American political history.

During both the primary and general election, candidate Trump seemed to run as much against the Republican as the Democratic party. Some of his promises had cross-party appeal—notably his calls for a massive infrastructure program and his pledge to protect certain entitlements. His health care proposals were admittedly vague, as he simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something great.” However, because President Trump had directly attacked the policy preferences of Republicans such as Speaker Paul Ryan and free-market institutions such as the Club for Growth, it seemed reasonable to believe he could lead the GOP away from the unpopular, wonkish economic policies that had little appeal outside the Beltway Right. The victory of President Trump was a victory for right-wing critics of Conservatism Inc., as he showed that its support for a liberal immigration policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and slashing entitlements had no real support among the conservative grassroots, let alone the larger public.

Yet since taking office, with rare exceptions, President Trump has governed like just another Republican. The president’s first major legislative initiative was a disastrous attempt to replace Obamacare. It is not surprising that President Trump did not have a specific “great” plan regarding healthcare, yet the conservative establishment’s failure to provide a workable alternative to Obamacare is testament to its uselessness.”

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

Since the election, the press has been making much of how demographics are turning formerly red states (Republicans) into blue states (Democrats). This is entirely due to mass immigration. The US takes in over 1 million legal immigrants every year. About 90% of these people are non-white.

My own Congressional district in northern Virginia (VA-10) is indicative of this. It went for the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf won the seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and didn’t relinquish it until he retired in 2014. That year, moderate Republican Barbara Comstock (who favors high immigration) won the seat by 16 points (56% to 40%) over her Democratic challenger. In 2016, her margin of victory was only 5.5 points. This year she lost by a margin of 56% to 44% to liberal Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

While there are many reasons for her loss, the main one is this. In 2008, VA-10 was 80% white. It is now 65% white.

Virginia used to be a rural, Southern and conservative state. It is now less than 56% white. Republicans have not won a state-wide election since 2009. This same trend is about to turn once solidly red states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and even Texas blue. Orange County, California (outside Los Angeles) used to be perhaps the most reliably conservative district in the nation. It was the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet it now has all Democrat representatives in Congress.

In terms of the 2020 elections, President Trump still has time to right the ship. Building his promised border wall with Mexico would be a great first step. He has also mentioned ending birthright citizenship (where children born in the US – even to illegals – are automatically given US citizenship) and affirmative action. If his actions can match his talking and threats, Trump can win reelection. But after 2020, demographics may permanently sweep the GOP away at the national level.

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

The sabotage of Prof. Robert Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting: informants exposed

Blow, blow thou winter wind.
Thou art not so unkind
As man’s ingratitude
(Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Sc. 7)

It was to be the final high-point of the year: the world-renowned expert, heroic and exact exponent of Historical Revisionism had decided in his ninetieth year to return to his place of birth in order to give his final speech: to sum up before a gathering of friends and supporters his lifetime’s endeavours in the intellectual adventure of the Twentieth Century (now running overdue). Professor Robert Faurisson, born to a Scottish mother and a French father in the outer London suburb of Shepperton, Middlesex in the year 1929, returned there on 20 October to address guests at a pleasant local hostelry; he spoke, as ever, clearly and with focus for an hour and twenty minutes, without notes and holding his audience spell-bound; fluent in both his mother’s language and his father’s, he moved effortlessly from one to the other to make certain points clearer. Our privilege to be there at this historic occasion; every man and woman carefully vetted: friends amongst friends.

And then came the sabotage: a left-wing hate-group had been informed of our meeting and found the venue: midway through, the group contacted the hotel’s management and threatened that a violent mob would come and wreck the meeting (plus harm staff and guests) unless the management pre-empted and closed the meeting down themselves. The management promptly obeyed the “order”, summoning the chairman to the desk and telling him to put an end to the conference at once. When he refused they resorted to “tough” tactics: repeatedly they set off the fire alarms, turned the lights off, brought a loud-speaker “ghetto-blaster” into the conference room and did their very worst by means of this cacophony to wreck the proceedings. Fortunately the Professor had completed what he had to say to us. He died of a heart attack immediately on returning to his French home a day later.

The question is: who sabotaged the meeting and why?

Was the meeting sabotaged from within “the movement”, defining “the movement” very broadly? And again what could the motive be for such a destructive act and deliberate betrayal of a hero, a man approaching the end of his life having returned to the place of his birth to be amongst friends and admirers to give his final talk to the world – the meeting was filmed.

There are names that are going to be recorded here; there have to be.

It is a fact that the singing satirist, Alison Chabloz, was not invited to the Shepperton meeting. Why not? Because Ms. Chabloz had taken it upon herself to condemn repeatedly the organiser of the Shepperton meeting, Peter Rushton, as “an enemy agent and liar.” This shameful abuse of a good man had no justification or foundation in fact; which fact has been repeatedly explained in detail to Ms. Chabloz. Hence she was excluded from the guest list for Professor Faurisson’s final meeting as an unwelcome entity.

Peter Rushton had served as Ms. Chabloz’s Defence witness at her trial at the Westminster Magistrates’ court, but had refused to go along with her campaign of abuse against Lady Michèle Renouf, a dedicated supporter of the right to free historical and scientific research, whom Ms. Chabloz has repeatedly maligned and defamed for the past year. The moment he dissociated himself from Ms. Chabloz’s endeavours to spread lies about Michèle Renouf, Mr Rushton himself became the target of the Chabloz lie machine. On her blog (10th May 2018) Ms. Chabloz had retorted (or threatened?) “it’s as if my detractors want me to sell my story to the enemy”.

Just a week before the Shepperton gathering, Ms. Chabloz sent a series of emails to Prof. Faurisson attempting to pressure him into intervening to allow her presence there. Ms. Chabloz’s tone was so insistent and outrageous that following her email of 16th October the Professor refused to reply any further to her messages. On arriving in Shepperton three days later he complained about being exhausted by Ms. Chabloz’s relentless behaviour. Despite knowing the reasons why she had been excluded from the Shepperton event, Ms Chabloz persisted during the few days leading up to October 20th in lobbying intensively among various naive nationalists, seeking information about an event to which she was not invited.

A second name must also be mentioned here: Sophie Johnson. Sophie Johnson is the name of the middle-aged Hungarian woman who at first regularly attended the hearings of Ms. Chabloz’s case at the Westminster Magistrates’ court. Sophie Johnson claims to be a close friend of Ms. Chabloz:  “I am squarely on the side of the unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. Some weeks before the Shepperton meeting, “Sophie Johnson” (described by Ms. Chabloz as a valued friend) left comments on the Danish activist NS Viking’s video platform, seriously demeaning Professor Robert Faurisson as senile – “an old fool” who had “authorised a vicious attack on Alison Chabloz”. This is another vile lie: the Professor never attacked Ms. Chabloz verbally or in writing; on the contrary he always had kind and encouraging words for her until eventually becoming exasperated – and even then he only complained about her conduct privately.  On the day of the Shepperton meeting, a ‘Sophie’ is registered on the twitter account of the left-wing hate-group, ‘Hope not Hate’ as contacting them with information relating to the Shepperton conference. Since (as she now admits) ‘Sophie’ does not have her own Twitter account, Hope not Hate had to use public Twitter posts in an effort to reach her and ask for further information.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

Questions: Was it Sophie Johnson, or somebody in the name of Sophie Johnson who betrayed our Shepperton event? And why in all this time, has Ms. Chabloz never condemned this sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s final appearance? And why has Ms. Chabloz never rebuked and corrected “Sophie Johnson” (if that be the correct name) for insulting the greatest Revisionist hero of our time, as “an old fool”? And why did Ms. Chabloz not dissociate herself at the time from a person having made such a disgusting comment?

Finally one has to say (after compiling a detailed timeline of these events, with the benefit of having read Alison Chabloz’s private emails to Prof. Faurisson and a great deal of other relevant correspondence): by the balance of probabilities it is the person calling herself “Sophie Johnson” who sabotaged our meeting and betrayed it to the enemy; and did so to please the individual, whom Sophie Johnson describes as the “unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. By the balance of probabilities, one is forced to the conclusion that Alison Chabloz, motivated by spite, arranged for the meeting from which she was excluded to be sabotaged.

By this disgraceful act, Ms. Chabloz damns herself as a traitor and saboteur. We are aware of the fact that several good nationalists have passed information to Ms. Chabloz which she has later misused – indeed we know precisely who informed her and when about the Shepperton event, enabling her sabotage – but we have no doubt that these folk were simply acting naively and in good faith. However from this point on, those who collaborate with Ms. Chabloz will be regarded as giving aid to an enemy informant.

The above statement is issued by Richard Edmonds, Michèle Renouf, and Peter Rushton, with the approval of Guillaume Nichols, Joe Fallisi and Fred Leuchter

Note: Mr Nichols was Prof. Faurisson’s right-hand man and translator for many years. Mr Fallisi (a veteran of the Gaza flotilla arrested by Israeli forces in 2010) sang for Prof. Faurisson’s 88th birthday celebration in 2017. Both Mr Nichols and Mr Fallisi were guests at Prof. Faurisson’s final event in Shepperton. Mr Leuchter is of course the execution technology expert whose revisionist report on Auschwitz led to decades of continuing persecution by the authorities, including his arrest and deportation from London in 1991.

We have no intention of getting drawn into a ‘debate’ with the traitor and saboteur Alison Chabloz, save only to note that in her own response to the above revelations she damns herself further by dismissing Prof. Faurisson as Michèle Renouf’s “principle [sic] PR agent”.

Having washed our hands of Ms. Chabloz, the January edition of H&D will turn to more serious matters. The campaign for historical truth proceeds, as we lesser men are raised up on the giant shoulders of Faurissonian exactitude. The intellectual adventure continues.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter