Henry Hafenmayer – champion of German freedom – dies aged 48

Henry Hafenmayer, 1972-2021

One of the foremost champions of free historical research and discussion – Henry Hafenmayer – died last Wednesday (11th August) in southern Germany, aged 48.

A former train driver who was dismissed for his political opinions, Henry became a prominent public champion of German historical revisionists, in a country where one can be jailed for questioning the official version of ‘Holocaust’ history. He was best known for his website Ende der Lüge (‘End of the Lie’) and associated social media accounts.

In this task he was especially closely associated with four jailed revisionists: former leftist lawyer and philosopher Horst Mahler (85); publisher and ecologist Ursula Haverbeck (92); lawyer Sylvia Stolz, first jailed for defending the late Ernst Zündel; and filmmaker / video blogger Alfred Schaefer. All four have served long prison sentences, and Mr Schaefer is still in jail.

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, and Lady Michèle Renouf during Alfred’s trial in Munich, 2018.

Henry himself faced several criminal charges, and until his untimely death was very much in the sights of occupied Germany’s political and judicial system.

He was a regular and convivial guest at political and social gatherings in Germany with comrades including H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton. We are shocked and saddened at losing this greatly valued friend, but are confident in the knowledge that Henry’s courage, honour and loyalty will not be in vain. Henry Hafenmayer’s name will live on in the annals of a future, better Europe.

During several months of serious illness this year, Henry was treated at clinics in Germany and Switzerland. As reported by our friends at Recht und Wahrheit, a close comrade had to pick up the entire bill for this treatment and for Henry’s funeral costs, so H&D encourages readers worldwide to donate if they possibly can to help defray these costs.

The German account for such donations is as follows:

Account name: S. U.
IBAN: DE13 8405 5050 1250 0169 63
BIC: HELADEF1WAK
Payment reference: 1108201

Horst Mahler has given Lady Renouf permission to send us this English translation of his tribute. Horst writes:

It is an honorary title they give us when they call us “Nazis”. That was what Henry Hafenmayer had understood. He lived his life so that he might earn this title through action. He did not fear death, and when he made up his mind to call the recognized enemy of the peoples by its name, he knew what to expect. Under the banner “End of the lie!” he finally moved from defence to attack and thus became a role model for those German youth who still want to be German. He held out when his well-paid job as a train driver was terminated. His answer was to multiply his efforts to make the invisible enemy visible. He laboriously scanned the Talmud (in twelve bulky volumes published in German by the official Jewish publishing house Jüdische Verlag) and placed it in the global electronic network. [Three sentences deleted and part of postscript deleted due to UK race laws.] With his web blog “The End of the Lie” lobbing intellectual grenades at the emplacements of the anti-German front in his own country, he has branded the Big Lie as an attempted genocide. He was one of the first to give the New National Socialism (NNS) a face. That makes him unforgettable. Hail Henry Hafenmayer!

Two very different wings of the anti-Islam movement

Anne-Marie Waters and ‘Tommy Robinson’ have several times endorsed each other’s campaigns, with mixed results.

This week saw bad results in court and at the ballot box for two very different wings of the anti-Islamist movement.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known under his alias ‘Tommy Robinson’ – is a chancer and petty criminal who has made a good living out of the anti-Islam movement (and an even better living from certain sections of international Zionism).

‘Tommy’ is regarded as the founder (and certainly the best known face) of the English Defence League (EDL) an avowedly ‘anti-racist’, fanatically pro-Israel, and militantly anti-Islam alliance of football hooligan gangs that briefly flourished a few years ago before breaking up into competing factions.

Since the EDL’s decline, ‘Tommy’ has fancied himself as a journalist but has continued to be mainly a self-publicist, and had a short disastrous venture into electoral politics when he contested the North West England region at the 2019 European Parliamentary elections, finishing eighth with just 2.2%.

Perhaps because of his public devotion to the Israeli cause, the mainstream media gave ‘Tommy’ soft treatment for many years, which perhaps encouraged this ageing adolescent thug (now 38) to believe he could get away with anything.

EDL leaders Kevin Carroll and ‘Tommy Robinson’ with two of America’s most notorious Zionist promoters of the Islamo-obsessive agenda, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller

Despite his public poses, ‘Tommy’ doesn’t care a damn about the victims of (for example) ‘grooming gangs’: in order to win publicity for himself he risked derailing a trial of two such cases in Canterbury (2017) and Huddersfield (2018).

And now ‘Tommy’ has lost a libel case after he made a series of what turned out to be unsubtantiated allegations against a Syrian-born schoolboy. ‘Tommy’ has been ordered to pay £100,000 in damages and also faces a costs bill that could easily run to £500,000. Since he claims to be bankrupt (despite the vast sums he has milked from the movement), ‘Tommy’ hopes to tear up the bill and carry on regardless, but might face serious questions as to where all the donors’ money has gone.

Yesterday’s judgment ruthlessly punctures ‘Tommy”s journalistic pretensions:
“This judgment – but more importantly – the award of damages will mark clearly that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the truth of his allegations. The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed. In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short.”

Though she has several times eagerly accepted endorsements from ‘Tommy’, and endorsed his campaigns in return, Anne Marie Waters is a very different character and the For Britain Movement she leads is very different from the EDL.

Though we might disagree with much of Ms Waters’ ideology and sometimes doubt her political choices, no one can doubt that she is a genuine, committed, and often courageous campaigner. After she broke away from UKIP to form the For Britain Movement, she bravely accepted numerous former BNP activists as members, candidates and party officials – notably the former BNP and English Democrat electoral strategist Eddy Butler, still best known for his ‘Rights for Whites’ campaigns that won the BNP their first councillor, Derek Beackon in the East End’s Isle of Dogs in 1993.

Anne Marie Waters on an earlier by-election campaign trail with former BNP election guru Eddy Butler and now-councillor Julian Leppert (far right)

Mr Butler’s colleague – H&D subscriber and former BNP mayoral candidate Julian Leppert – is presently the only elected councillor for Ms Waters’ party, and one of very few racial nationalist councillors of any stripe anywhere in the UK in 2021 (though his party leader is very much not a racial nationalist!).

By coincidence, on the very same day that ‘Tommy Robinson’ lost his libel case, two For Britain candidates were heavily defeated in local council by-elections. Both candidates are longstanding racial nationalists of high calibre and both showed courage and commitment in putting themselves forward as candidates, at a time when our movement’s electoral fortunes are at a low ebb.

There was no reason to think that either of the wards was especially good territory for a pro-White campaign, and the nationwide political context remains one in which most racially conscious Whites tend to favour Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party, despite its recent loss of support among the socially liberal middle classes.

(Notably, the vast majority of potential voters for our types of candidate/party remain supportive of the government’s policies for dealing with the Covid pandemic: there is little or no electoral backing for the Covid-sceptic or anti-vaccination stances favoured by significant numbers of movement activists, but ignored or opposed by the vast majority of voters.)

FBM candidates Dave Haslett (above) and Gary Bergin (below)

So it was no surprise to see very modest votes for the two For Britain candidates: 26 votes (1.2%) for Gary Bergin in Liscard ward, Wirral; and 37 votes (1.6%) for Dave Haslett in Humberstone & Hamilton ward, Leicester.

Readers should note that in the Leicester ward a candidate for Reform UK (the renamed Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage’s close ally Richard Tice) also polled just 37 votes (1.6%).

There appears to be no magic recipe for electoral success within the space to the ‘right’ of the Conservative Party. Those who are looking towards some form of new racial nationalist alliance have serious thinking to do – at one time it seemed that civic nationalism with an anti-Islamist, pro-Zionist edge was the way forward, at least for those prepared to swallow their ideological objections in the interest of electoral ‘strategy’. That argument no longer holds water.

Did ‘racism’ win on penalties?

An ‘anti-racist’ mural of Marcus Rashford in Manchester was mobbed by gestures of wokeist support after ‘racist’ social media criticism of his missed penalty.

According to the football authorities and mainstream political leaders, ‘racism’ (especially on social media) is yet again the big story of the week, this time because of a few football fans’ reactions to England’s defeat on penalties in Sunday night’s final of the European Championship.

After weeks of intense wokeness led by England manager Gareth Southgate – who seems to believe that the talents of a few black footballers have resolved the entire debate about the merits or demerits of the multiracial society – the penalty shootout between England and Italy proved to be the wokeist’s worst nightmare.

Of the five English penalty takers, two White players scored while three black players failed.

It would be cruel as well as foolish to make too much of this, especially as one of the Blacks is only 19 years old.

Yet consider what would have been the universal media and political reaction had it been the other way round, or simply had a black footballer scored the decisive penalty winning the game for England, rather than missing the decisive penalty sealing our defeat.

Every other aspect of the match would have been a minor issue: the heroism of the black goalscorer would have been the front-page lead, and we would all have been treated to endless analysis of how this ‘English’ triumph had redefined our new, ‘diverse’, ‘vibrant’ nation.

The three players who missed for England: Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, and Bukayo Saka

These plaudits would have been just as exaggerated as the brickbats presently cast on social media, yet the former would have been the accepted (indeed compulsory) reaction to victory, while the latter is now being criminalised and indeed made the excuse for new crackdowns on the entire social media world.

And no one seems to be asking the only relevant question in footballing terms: did Gareth Southgate allow his wokeness to affect his managerial judgment? Not only did he choose three blacks among the five penalty takers (including 19-year-old Bukayo Saka, son of Nigerian immigrants), he actually brought two of these three onto the field during the final minutes of the match when they could make no positive difference in open play, with the sole intention of their taking penalties.

Afterwards Southgate insisted his choice had been based on how the players performed in training. Yet everyone knows that taking a penalty under pressure is completely different to taking one in training: indeed scoring from a penalty is not an extraordinary feat of footballing skill. Most schoolboy footballers would manage it most of the time in training. The knack is to to perform under pressure.

And you don’t have to be any sort of ‘racist’ to recognise that while Africans and Afro-Caribbeans might have many merits, performing well under pressure is not (on average) among them.

Who but an inveterate wokeist, when asked to guess the ideal type of man to score a penalty in front of an expectant crowd at the end of the final of the world’s second-most important football tournament, would answer: “a 19-year-old ethnic Nigerian”?

It’s no doubt ‘racist’ of us even to discuss such questions. Football personalities well outside the England set-up are now crying ‘racism’ whenever they wish to avoid embarrassing scrutiny.

Controversial Oldham Athletic owner Abdallah Lemsagam

No one in Oldham was surprised, for example, when yesterday the unpopular chairman of Oldham Athletic – Abdallah Lemsagam – who has been under pressure to resign from many fans, former players and staff – accused unnamed fans of ‘racially abusing’ him and his brother at a recent pre-season friendly.

He no doubt hopes that everything else about his running of the club will pale into insignificance next to an isolated alleged instance of ‘racism’.

How much longer will this craziness continue? Will ‘taking the knee’ be compulsory at every football match in England this season? And why stop there? Should we not insist that schoolchildren ‘take the knee’ at the start of every school day, much as in a bygone era they might once have said a prayer?

So far it appears that Gareth Southgate and his team have succeeded where Meghan Markle failed: institutionalising ‘anti-racism’ by the simple expedient of missing three penalties.

Trans row splits Green Party: ultra-woke leader quits

Sian Berry resigned today as co-leader of the Green Party a few days after the resignation of her colleague Jonathan Bartley. Ms Berry is probably the second-best known Green in England (after the party’s sole MP Caroline Lucas) and was her party’s candidate for Mayor of London in 2008, 2016 and 2021, finishing third with 7.8% this year. She has been a member of the Greater London Assembly since 2016.

Her resignation was prompted by a bitter internal row within the Green Party over “trans rights” – specifically whether a man should be allowed to define himself as a woman even if he has not had “gender reassignment” surgery.

Ms Berry (in common with most of the ultra-woke left – though why this should even be a left v right issue is a mystery to H&D) is a fanatical supporter of trans rights: so far as she is concerned, people can define themselves as male, female, or something indeterminate – regardless of biological facts.

Her problem is that the Greens (being very ‘democratic’) elect their party spokesmen, so she is unable to choose her own leadership team.

In her resignation statement, Ms Berry writes of “an inconsistency between the sincere promise to fight for trans rights and inclusion in my work and the message sent by the party’s choice of front bench representatives.

“This inconsistency has left me in a very difficult position. I can no longer claim that the party speaks unequivocally, with one voice, on this issue.

“And my conscience simply cannot agree with the argument that there is anything positive in sending these mixed messages, especially when the inclusive attitudes of our membership and wider society are clear.”

Shahrar Ali

While Ms Berry was careful not to name names, H&D understands that the split centres on Shahrar Ali, a former deputy leader of the party who stood for the leadership last September against Ms Berry and Mr Bartley.

Shahrar Ali (who has a doctorate in philosophy from London University) is now the Green Party’s spokesman on policing, and it appears that due to his taking an opposing line on ‘trans’ Ms Berry found it impossible to tolerate his presence in the leadership team.

Dr Ali issued a statement last July entitled “What is a Woman?” in which he dared to write: “A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes. These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party. We campaign for the rights of women and girls to be treated equally on the basis of the protected characteristic of biological sex, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.”

While he went on to defend the rights of those who had gone through “gender reassignment”, this statement was interpreted by the ultra-woke as “transphobic”, apparently because Dr Ali seemed not to recognise the “rights” of people to make up their own gender regardless of biology.

It’s not the first time that Dr Ali has been in trouble for speaking his mind. In 2018 the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Jewish Chronicle reported a speech he had made nine years earlier, describing it as an “offensive” anti-semitic “rant”. Dr Ali eventually won a ruling in his favour from the press regulator IPSO.

Westminster Bubbles – can any politician cast the first stone?

Following the resignation of Health Secretary Matt Hancock over breaching Covid regulations in connection with an extra-marital affair, Westminster and Fleet Street rumour mills are working overtime.

The two frontbenchers most in the spotlight are Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner and Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove. Coincidentally Rayner has been responsible for shadowing Gove ever since Labour’s misfired reshuffle.

But the rumours have nothing to do with politics.

Rayner split up from her husband, union official Mark Rayner, last year and has for some time been very close to her former campaign manager, Ilford MP Sam Tarry – a former employee of the ‘anti-racist charity’ Hope not Hate. Both Tarry and Rayner are married with children: indeed Rayner (though only 41) is a grandmother.

Hope not Hate boss Nick Lowles sprang to Tarry’s defence before the 2019 election when his former aide was accused of having links to ‘antisemites’ in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

At least Rayner and Tarry are involved in a straightforward, old-fashioned, extramarital affair.

The Tory scandals are far more exotic, involving swingers’ parties, cocaine, and perhaps their very own Philip Schofield about to ‘out’ himself.

Michael Gove reporting for the BBC on a Gay Pride march in 1993

Covid regulations make this sort of thing much more complicated: at one time a Tory MP might have thought ‘lockdown’ had something to do with Miss Whiplash in a Shepherd Market flat. But now even the highest in the land are subjected to the Daily Mail‘s middle-class morality.

Fortunately for Michael Gove (who once shared a flat with gay businessman Ivan Massow and gay Tory Nick Boles) a large part of the British media belongs to Rupert Murdoch, who has always seen Gove as his man – so you can guarantee that whatever stories break this week, they won’t be Sun exclusives!

Mr Gove has in some respects always been proud of swinging both ways. In February this year he was challenged in the House of Commons about his claims to have sung The Sash, but professed that in addition to this loyalist anthem he also sang the republican favourite Fields of Athenry and the Scottish nationalist Flower of Scotland.

‘Anti-fascist’ thug accused of ‘inciting’ attack on scientist

Lee Hurst – violent anti-fascist turned “proud Covidiot”

Comedian Lee Hurst has been reported to the police following what Prime Minister Boris Johnson described as “despicable harassment” of the government’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty.

In recent years Hurst has been portrayed by the mainstream media as ‘right-wing’ after apparent support for EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’ and hostility to climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.

However H&D can reveal that Hurst was an ‘anti-fascist’ street activist involved with the ultra-violent Red Action, notorious for its brutal attacks on the BNP and other nationalist groups in the 1980s and 1990s.

On 21st April 1990 for example, Hurst took part in a Red Action attack on BNP members attending an election meeting at Weaver’s Field School, Bethnal Green – one of that era’s most notorious acts of ‘anti-fascist’ violence.

Finding himself among more ‘respectable’ left-wing protesters, Hurst climbed over a fence to join the hardcore Red Action thugs who were attacking BNP members (including pensioners) and the police.

Police on the day had foolishly or deliberately insisted on dividing the BNP members (who were on their way to a perfectly peaceful and lawful election meeting) into small groups, making them easier to attack. The party newspaper British Nationalist reported:

“The Left did exactly as anticipated: they made several attacks in sectors where they were able to pick on the BNP in tiny numbers. A number of BNP supporters suffered injuries, one of them an elderly pensioner. Another received a hairline fracture of the skull and had to be taken to hospital. And this was not all. In some cases where BNP men defended themselves vigorously against the left, despite being outnumbered, they [the BNP] were arrested for ‘breaches of the peace’.”

Two Red Action terrorists – including its London leader Patrick Hayes – were later jailed for carrying out the 1993 bombing of Harrods on behalf of the IRA.

Meanwhile Lee Hurst went on to find fame as a television comedian, and now notoriety for his Twitter campaign against Prof. Chris Whitty. After demonstrators picketed Whitty’s home and he was confronted while walking through a park, Hurst tweeted: “What has happened to Chris Whitty is not enough.”

Former England rugby international Brian Moore was among many to condemn Hurst for his ‘cowardly’ attack – pointing out that when the scientist was just 17 his father was murdered by a terrorist gunman in Athens (having apparently been mistaken for an MI6 officer from whom he bought his car).

While there is a wide range of views among H&D readers about the Covid pandemic and government policies, we can surely all agree that it would be both foolish and wicked to fall in with agents provocateurs who seek to intimidate scientists in their homes. Neither do we want anything to do with evil ‘anti-fascist’ thugs like Lee Hurst. We haven’t forgotten or forgiven.

Old gang parties unite to block Le Pen – but most French voters boycott election

Next year’s election still seems likely to end in a run-off between President Emmanuel Macron (above left) and Marine Le Pen, but both suffered disappointing results yesterday.

The second round of the French regional elections yesterday ended in disappointment for Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN – successor to the French National Front founded by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen), but disaster for President Emmanuel Macron’s ‘centrist’ party En Marche.

Mme Le Pen had hoped her party might gain control of a region so as to demonstrate its capacity to govern, ahead of next year’s presidential election when she expects to be Macron’s main challenger.

Her main target was the southern region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA), a traditionally strong area both for the RN and in earlier years for the FN. The RN list was headed by Thierry Mariani, who was transport minister a decade ago in the conservative government of Prime Minister Fillon and President Sarkozy and has been the highest profile defector from the centre-right to Mme Le Pen’s ranks.

In last Sunday’s first round, this RN list was narrowly ahead by 36.4% to 31.9%, with the largest of the leftist-green slates on 16.9%. This meant that the latter slate had the right to contest the second round (which is not simply a run-off between the two largest parties, but can be joined by any list that polled above 10% in the first round).

However in a move showing that despite the Le Pen strategy of dédiabolisation (‘de-demonisation’) the RN is still regarded by its opponents as a ‘far right’ / ‘fascist’ threat, the left decided to withdraw from PACA’s second round and endorse the conservative ‘centre right’ slate, headed by incumbent regional president Reynaud Muselier.

This despite the fact that Mme Le Pen is far close to the traditional left than the ‘centre right’ on economic policy. Her party duly lost the PACA second round by 57% to 43%. This was slightly down from the 45.2% achieved by the RN slate (then headed by the leader’s niece Marion Maréchal) in this region six years ago.

Sébastien Chenu (above left) – former head of the LGBT wing of the French centre-right conservative party – was one of several leading conservatives to defect to Marine Le Pen’s RN and headed her slate in the party’s second strongest region, but finished a distant runner-up yesterday.

Potentially good news for Mme Le Pen is that only 34% of the PACA electorate turned out to cast a valid vote yesterday, in line with mass abstention nationwide. In particular, despite calls for a ‘republican front’ against the RN ‘fascists’, 90% of voters under 25 seem to have boycotted the election. Not only did they refuse to turn out to block the ‘far right’ in this second round – they weren’t even interested in the first round, when a vast range of alternatives, from Trotskyists to traditional conservatives, and including different varieties of green, were on the ballot.

Yet it must remain disturbing for the RN leader that although the French government is widely perceived to have failed during the Covid crisis – there is no Boris-style ‘bounce’ for Macron – and despite all her efforts to make her party seem less ‘extreme’, she remains unable to breakthrough to a wider public than the people who have supported her for much of the past decade.

Perhaps as for racial nationalist parties and groups across much of the White world, the RN has been unable to develop a clear message during Covid, with some favouring a version of anti-lockdown or even anti-vaccination theories, while others wanted to maintain a focus on our movement’s traditional issues and criticising (where appropriate) government inefficiency and cronyism in the face of the pandemic.

In the RN’s second-strongest area Hauts-de-France they made almost no progress, from 24.4% in the first round to 25.7% in the second (compared to 42.2% in the equivalent region in 2015, when Marine Le Pen herself headed the slate); in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (one of four mainland regions won by left-green coalitions) the RN slipped from second to third place with 23.8%; while in Brittany (also one by socialists and greens) the RN vote fell from 14.3% in the first round to 13.2% in the second.

President Macron’s party En Marche failed to win a single region, and in several regions polled below 10%.

Neocon propaganda report targets H&D contributors and ‘Iranian network’ in UK

In June 2021 a neocon propaganda outfit (based in London but named after a notoriously pro-Zionist US Senator) published an alarmist “analysis” of “Iranian Influence Networks in the United Kingdom”.

The report was issued by the Henry Jackson Society, named after Sen. Henry Jackson (1912-1983) who led the most pro-Israel wing of the US Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s.

Author of the report is Dr Paul Stott – once a leading activist in the violent anarchist group ‘Class War’ – who became a supporter of the ‘right-wing’ United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and is now an Associate Fellow at the HJS.

Anarchist turned neocon Dr Paul Stott

The “Iranian Influence Networks” highlighted by Stott include three individuals who have aired pro-revisionist and/or anti-Zionist views on the Iranian television channel Press TV: Dr James Thring, Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, and Lady Michèle Renouf.

Dr Thring (author of Peace with Iran) was organiser of a scheduled meeting at the House of Lords in 2012 that was blocked after lobbying by the Jewish Chronicle and other Zionist groups.

Stott complains that:
“In 2008, Press TV gave Kollerstrom a platform to present Holocaust denial, in an article for the Press TV website entitled ‘The Walls of Auschwitz’. Here he argued that the massacre of Jews during WW2 was ‘scientifically impossible’. In the cases of both Thring and Kollerstrom, their conspiracy-laden world view finds some accord, or a platform, with Iran.”

(The HJS report does not mention the row that ensued when the Jewish Chronicle attacked Press TV for this Auschwitz article, later publishing letters in reply from Lady Renouf and Dr Kollerstrom. One Israeli settler fanatic then published a death threat against Lady Renouf on a Canadian neocon website, inciting his fellow Zionists to “send Renouf ricin in a get-well card”.)

Stott goes on to quote the US academic Dr George Michael – “The most notable instance of propaganda sharing between the extreme right and militant Islam has been in the area of historical revisionism” – and identifies two very different Iranian presidents (Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad) as supporters of revisionism.

He does fairly and accurately quote from the 2006 Tehran conference as follows:
“In December 2006, Iran hosted the two-day International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. Among those given a platform was the British activist Lady Michèle Renouf. In Tehran she gave a passionate speech in support of the Iranian government:
“‘I have come to Tehran to congratulate the Iranians, and those people who voted Dr Ahmadinejad as their president. For this valiant statesman, just like my noble revisionist colleagues, whose right of open debate I proudly champion, seek to speak the truth bravely, and no matter for their personal cost in being demonised, ostracised, or even imprisoned as they are in Europe and Canada, for their rational opinions, which we thought was the glory of our civilisation.’”

Lady Renouf (above right) with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran

Stott adds:
“Lady Renouf denies being on the Far Right and declares that she is motivated not by Holocaust denial but by a desire to ensure ‘debate denial’ does not occur. She has justified her positions by saying ‘People should have the freedom to question the accepted view of what happened. That questioning is part of our culture.’”

The operating assumption of Dr Stott and his ilk is that ‘holocaust denial’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ are inherently ‘extremist’ and in this instance part of a sinister Iranian network to promote anti-Zionism.

It would of course be anathema to Stott and the Henry Jackson Society were anyone to present a corresponding notion that the orthodox historiography of the ‘Holocaust’, and the framework of tyrannical laws established to defend that orthodoxy, are themselves part of a long-established network designed to promote Zionism. (It’s probably no coincidence that within days of Stott’s report, the US Government began moves to censor Iranian-owned news networks.)

Boris Johnson – a few months before he became Prime Minister – addressing a Henry Jackson Society event at Westminster, alongside the Society’s executive director (above right) Dr Alan Mendoza – a Conservative parliamentary candidate and trustee of the President Reagan Memorial Fund Trust.

That such a network exists would seem evident – take the Henry Jackson Society itself. The UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrote the foreword to an HJS report on “Global Britain” in 2019. The HJS was co-founded by former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and has been financed by the American-Jewish heiress Nina Rosenwald and Anglo-Jewish businessman Stanley Kalms (now Lord Kalms), a former treasurer of the Conservative Party. It has also taken money from the Japanese Embassy in London to promote anti-Chinese propaganda.

President Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a Henry Jackson Society event in 2020

However one of the men who co-founded the Henry Jackson Society at Cambridge in 2005, defence and foreign policy consultant Matthew Jamison, has denounced the Society’s recent activities:
“Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that the Henry Jackson Society, when it was founded, would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist organisation, run in the most dictatorial, corrupt and undemocratic fashion and utilized as a propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups. Indeed, the far-right anti-Muslim racist nature of the HJS has helped to lay the intellectual groundwork for much of what President Trump and his Breitbart reading ‘alt-right’ movement is attempting to do against Muslim people and immigrants in the United States. The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam.”

No breakthrough for Le Pen in low turnout French elections

Next year’s election will be Marine Le Pen’s third attempt to win the French presidency

Yesterday’s regional elections in France were preceded by customary liberal media scare stories about likely breakthrough for a ‘resurgent far right’. Yet the first round results – while undeniably bad news for President Emmanuel Macron’s ‘centrist’ party La République en marche (LREM) – were not a great success for Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (National Rally – the renamed National Front).

Turnout fell to less than 34%, indicating that the Macron government (unlike Boris Johnson’s UK government so far) is seen as having failed the nation during Covid – yet voters have not swung behind the RN opposition.

The main winners of the first round were ‘centre-right’ conservatives, though next year’s presidential election is still almost certain to end in a choice between Macron and Mme Le Pen.

There are thirteen regional councils governing mainland France (the most important tier below the republic’s national government), plus five overseas. Voters in these regions choose among party lists in a two-round system. To qualify for the second round a list must poll 10% in the first: having done so, it can then fight the second round either by itself or on a combined ticket which can be joined by any other list that polled over 5% in the first round.

As part of Marine Le Pen’s strategy of dédiabolisation to win respectability for her party, it would be important to win control of a region and demonstrate that the RN is capable of holding serious political responsibility.

Her best chance is in the traditional FN/RN stronghold known as PACA – the southern region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. Here the RN list is headed by Thierry Mariani, who was transport minister a decade ago in the conservative government of Prime Minister Fillon and President Sarkozy.

Mariani leads a right-wing conservative faction that broke away to ally with Le Pen in 2019 – one of the big successes of her dédiabolisation strategy. Yesterday RN’s list in this region ‘won’ the first round with 36.4%, but was not far ahead of the centre-right conservative list (backed in this region by the President’s party LREM) on 31.9%. A socialist-green list with 16.9% also has the option of contesting next Sunday’s second round and can expect support from a range of smaller green and left-wing parties knocked out in the first round, but despite Mariani’s ‘respectability’ there is likely to be some swing of ‘anti-fascist’ voters behind the conservatives.

Xavier Bertrand is set for re-election as regional president of Hauts-de-France, a boost to his ambition to become conservative presidential candidate next year.

Marine Le Pen’s home region Nord Pas-de-Calais was merged with Picardy in the restructuring of French regions a decade ago and now forms part of Hauts-de-France. Here Sébastien Chenu, one of several open homosexuals among Mme Le Pen’s party leadership, was hoping to defeat one of the leading French conservatives, regional president Xavier Bertrand, who is likely to be the centre-right’s presidential candidate next year.

However, Bertrand’s list won the first round easily with 41.2% ahead of the RN’s 24.4% and the socialist-green list’s 19.0%, with President Macron’s LREM knocked out on 9.1%.

The centre-right also looks likely to win the Île-de-France region that includes Paris and its environs, after its list led the first round with 35.9% ahead of the RN’s 13.1%. The result here did illustrate comical divisions on the French left, with three rival socialist/green lists all qualifying for the second round by polling over 10% (unless they can negotiate a combined slate).

Good news for Marine Le Pen is that her party has qualified for the second round in all thirteen mainland regions, with one first-place and eight runners-up. Aside from the three regions mentioned above, RN votes ranged from 12.3% in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes to 23.2% in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté.

Apart from Corsica (where the RN polled only 4%) and various ‘French’ regions in South America, the Caribbean and Indian Ocean where the RN is predictably weak, Marine Le Pen can claim to lead a serious alternative party of government.

But the main challenge in next Sunday’s second round (and in next year’s presidential election) will be to convert widespread public disillusionment with Macron into positive support for the RN rather than yesterday’s winners – apathy and the ‘centre-right’.

Dublin, Sinn Fein and Biden attempt conquest of Ulster by stealth

Edwin Poots, who resigned last night

Last night’s resignation of Edwin Poots after just three weeks as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has led to much sniggering among the liberal media establishment in London.

Yet this is far more than an internal party crisis for the DUP – it reflects a fundamental crisis over the meaning of democracy, and national/cultural identity.

Sinn Fein – political wing of the terrorist IRA – is trying to force through an ‘Irish Language Act’ as part of its invented ‘national culture’. Absurdly this would give the ‘Irish language’ equal status to English as an official language throughout Northern Ireland, even though it is a language that hardly anyone in the province speaks. Literally no-one in Northern Ireland speaks ‘Irish’ as their first language: even south of the border, only 1% claim to do so. Sinn Fein leaders regularly embarrass themselves when forced to stumble through a sentence or two in ‘Irish’.

As has been shown in several countries during the last century, imposing a language is part of a cultural struggle to achieve or compromise national sovereignty, which is clearly the case here.

The Dublin government and Joe Biden’s White House are part of a coordinated campaign to conquer Ulster. They are assisted by the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, requiring that any devolved government in Stormont must involve a coalition of the largest Unionist party and the largest Republican party (in effect insisting on a DUP – Sinn Fein coalition).

Joe Biden with the late IRA godfather Martin McGuinness (above right)

Would President Biden be happy if the constitution forced him to share power with Donald Trump, regardless of the election result? Would President Macron of France, who had the cheek to imply that Northern Ireland was not part of “the same country” as the rest of the UK, be happy if he were forced to share power with Marine Le Pen and enact sections of her party’s agenda?

Yet that is what the Agreement imposes on Ulster.

Sinn Fein’s chutzpah knows no bounds. In response to Mr Poots’s resignation, Sinn Fein MP Chris Hazzard said that the DUP was “struggling to come to terms” with a “modern, progressive society”.

This from Sinn Fein – whose progressive modernism includes wishing to impose a language long dead (if indeed it ever existed in this form); a party rooted in barbaric terrorism, whose leaders (including the then Deputy First Minister!) openly scoffed at the law last year when holding a mass funeral for IRA godfather Bobby Storey.

The ultimate progressive modernism of Sinn Fein / IRA and their allies in Dublin and Washington is to force through the abandonment of Ulster identity and the imposition of Dublin rule against the democratic will of Ulster’s citizens.

That’s what lies behind the Irish Language Act and the EU’s trade protocols, and that’s why British patriots should stand with Loyal Ulstermen – whatever it takes – against this betrayal and in support of the United Kingdom’s integrity.

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter