Should nationalists follow and/or support professional sports teams?
As these lines are being written the 2022 World Cup has recently ended. Close to four billion people watched some at least of the games which is over half the human race. Of what relevance, if any, is all this hoopla to nationalists and our cause?
One caveat at this point is required. The term “nationalist” becomes increasingly anachronistic, particularly in Western Europe and North America. There, the nation is defined as the government which, in truth, despises its own people. By nation we mean the people which has genetic, cultural, and moral elements.
Caveat two, we will not limit our discussion to international play, although the loss of folk identity is often particularly poignant there. All professional and many amateur sports seemingly cannot avoid becoming vehicles for the causes of racial amalgamation and the attendant demonization of any whites who tried over the years or at present to preserve racial integrity.
In fact, it might well be time to do away with terms of “multi-racialism” and multiculturalism. Those marching under the banner of these phrases are actually opponents of preserving the “multi” aspects of race and culture. At worst they seek to exalt non-White races and, at best, they work towards racial amalgamation. From this point on we will use the “multi” label for those who desire to preserve the unique identities of many races and cultures.
At the Qatar World Cup we found a strange anomaly. Only Western European teams featured peoples other than their own. (Eastern Europeans in this, as in much else, are very different.) Often most of their players were foreigners. African, Asian, Arabic and South America squads were virtually all composed of their own. Of course, this contradiction was never noted. When the French team would play the announcers would invariably remark on how the team was the “face of the new France.”
The northwestern and central “European” teams went a step further in obedience to Big Brother’s dogmas. Their captains wanted to wear armbands in support of LGBT-ism and it was only FIFA intervening on behalf of Muslim and other traditional sensibilities that brought this bizarre escapade to a conclusion. A decision, of course, widely and wildly demonized in global media.
The field of sports plays a large role in modern culture. It has been a prolonged battlefield for the forces of racial amalgamation versus those who support true multi-racialism. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, it was an accepted social norm that all professional team sports in America were limited to Whites, whether de facto or de jure is matter of some dispute. It was not until 1947 that Jackie Robinson became the first black to play in Major League Baseball. Until that point a variety of “Negro Leagues” played before all black audiences for teams located around the country.
Similarly, American football was first integrated by the Cleveland Browns as they joined the National Football League in 1950 from the All-American Football League (1946-1949) which was previously integrated. As strange as it might seem today, the National Basketball Association did not have blacks in their league until 1950 as well.
In college sports no Southern teams ever admitted, and thus never played, blacks. They even refused to play teams which had blacks in their lineup. Northern schools had no problem with this until after Second World War. In keeping with good sportsmanship, the Southern schools when playing Northern teams would sit out some of their, mutually agreed upon, White players in order to not have an unfair advantage.
But by the mid-1950s the times were rapidly changing. Georgia Tech was invited to the 1956 Sugar Bowl game there to face the Pittsburgh Panthers known as Pitt. The Georgia state legislature forbade the team to play since Pitt had one black player in their lineup. State law at that time forbade participation in mixed race sporting events. Tech students rioted demanding to play and in the end the school and state relented and allowed the team to participate.
This was a clear demonstration that the hearts of many Southerners especially the young, were moving toward the racial amalgamation position. But it was several galling defeats at the hands of integrated teams and great pressure from the national government and media that fully dragged the South into the integration era. On March 19th, 1966, Texas Western defeated Kentucky in the NCAA championship game. The winning team featured five blacks as its starters. Kentucky was still an all-White side. This event has entered into the popular consciousness via the 2006 film Glory Road where, as could be imagined, the event is depicted as a glorious moment in American history.
Similarly, Alabama began its 1970 season by playing, for the first time, against an integrated team, that of Southern California, and losing. This was a major factor in causing Southern schools to begin to recruit non-White athletes. Today blacks dominate all levels of football and basketball in America, even in the South.
In football the Washington Redskins was the last team to never have had a black in their lineup. George Preston Marshall was their owner and he steadfastly maintained that since Washington DC was still segregated the team should reflect the mores of the city. Finally in 1962 after many threats from the Kennedy administration Marshall relented and signed a black player, Bobby Mitchell to the team.
Yet despite all these changes it is, as always, never enough. One of America’s most prolific sports writers John Feinstein, who has authored thirty books on athletics, just wrote, Raise a Fist, Take a Knee: Race and the Illusion of Progress in Modern Sports (2021). The theme of the book is one heard in all mainstream media in America. More must be done. Everything is still tainted by “racists” and “racism”. In fact, despite the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell originally condemning the kneeling, during the national anthem by a handful of black players, eventually hundreds of players black and White were kneeling and raising their fists in protest against the never defeated “discrimination” and “racism.” In a short time, Goodell himself bowed before Big Brother, explaining how Colin Kapernick the first black knee-taker was right and how sorry he was for opposing the knee-takers.
The title of Feinstein’s book is part based on the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City where two American blacks raised their fists in protests during the medal ceremony of the 200 meters run. The reader should keep in mind that by this point both Rhodesia and South Africa were banned from the Olympics and all international competitions because of their “racism” and apartheid. But par for the course more must be done.
In the UK this, too, recently became the practice as many teams would kneel and raise their fists before matches. Broadcasters had a hard time explaining what it all meant. Some said it was a protest against “racism.” Others told us it was effort to promote “inclusion.” In America stadiums wrote the new anti “racism” catechism in the grass of their fields.
Authors devoted entire books to the courage of the knee takers. To critical acclaim, in 2021, David Zirin authored The Kapernick Effect: Taking a Knee, Changing the World. The book featured hundreds of tales of knee takers at all levels and types of American sports, presumably all “world changers” as well.
Over 70% of professional football and basketball players are black. In the NBA over half the coaches are black. Yet, this is still “not enough.” Baseball forever bemoans that not enough American blacks are in the league. Names of teams are changed because, supposedly American Red-Indians are upset by them. Negro league statistics are now included in Major League Baseball statistics.
So where does all this leave nationalists. Should we continue to follow and pay for professional sports? Let us pause for a moment here and reflect on the changes sports have wrought beyond the immediate and obvious one of normalizing the end of racial distinctions. They have changed the nature of the previously given culture. Before integration athletes celebrated goals, touchdowns, home runs and the like by receiving a few calm handshakes from teammates. Today they dance, prance, often striking a pose like a chest thumping gorilla. Incidentally, today, Whites are as apt to do this as blacks.
In a fascinating example, professional wrestling which has been a staged performance for well over a century, has now altered its story lines. Once the humble rule-abiding “face” would battle the bragging, cheating “heel.” The “face” was always well mannered and would never break the rules until driven beyond endurance by the “heel.” It was a morality play. Today it is, at best, amoral and, at worst, immoral. The humble hero is now also a self-promoting egocentric maniac. There was little to differentiate Hulk Hogan and Dusty Rhodes (“faces” of the late twentieth century) from the villains Superstar Bully Graham and Nature Boy Rick Flair. All bragged. All strutted. All called up the crowd to exalt them. One of the main sources for this change was Muhammad Ali who brought self-promotion to the role of heavy weight champion.
One might say that whereas Joe Louis followed the standards of Anglo-Saxon heroes, today we find the Whites mimicking the theatrics of the non-Whites.
Sports also serve as a never-ending stage for anti-White self-abasement. Some years back – April 15th, 1997 – which was the fiftieth anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s breaking the “color line,” a New York local sports show posed to its listeners the “unanswerable” question of, what were people thinking back then? How could anybody allow there to be separate leagues for blacks and Whites? Of course, no caller could (or perhaps dared) offer an explanation. All agreed it was utter evil perpetrated by the bad White people.
Recent years, in addition to knees taken and fists clenched, have seen sports talk shows invariably raise the question of whether there are “enough” black coaches and owners. (Incidentally no one suggests that there should be affirmative action for “traumatized Whites” who are enormously underrepresented in football and basketball).
In addition, what is truly amazing when watching the Qatar World Cup is why it was only the White European teams of Western and Central Europe that took the knee and wished to promote LGBT celebration. No other nations, including the African ones, could have cared less.
The integration of sports yields a never-ending wave of movies demonizing Whites and praising racial amalgamation. A few examples of a far larger list from recent years would include Cool Running (1993), Remember the Titans (2000), Glory Road (2006), Invictus (2008), Black in Blue (2016), 47 (2013), John Barnes: Poetry in Motion (2018). The loss of racial integrity on so many fronts and the canonization of the amalgamation approach is part of the central mythology of all sports.
Many football grounds in England and to a lesser extent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, were once successful recruitment sites for nationalist parties such as the NF, BNP and BM. However now they are used by owners and players to wage war against the ever present “racism” and to promote LGBT-ism.
We all understand full well the hold that sports have on male psyche. We want to play and watch, support teams, marvel at feats and records. Pele (who recently died aged 82) was certainly right when he called soccer “the beautiful game.” And going back to ancient Greece sports is part of what we love to do and observe. And let us not forget the role it plays in social and familial bonding. At a time of civilization disintegration, sports provide ties that bind. And attending games remains largely a White affair. We cheer on teams that feature blacks way out of proportion to their percentage in society and cheer them on while in company almost only of Whites.
This is part of the strange anomaly of sports. Our children hang pictures of black athletes on their bedroom walls. Whatever one may say about their talents and abilities (and they do seem to be prodigious) it certainly cannot help the cause of racial identity to have our population engaged in a frenzy of public adulation of those who consistently alter the very fabric of national existence.
Some will yet object that we can still pursue our political activities, devote time to them and just here and there venerate non-Whites and marvel at their exploits. Be all that as it may, it would still seem that one’s devotion to racial integrity has to be undermined by devoted sports following.
Yet, when all American sports leagues and the English Premiership went, well, totally daft in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death it became ever more difficult for some Whites to follow sports. This was true especially in the American NBA which devoted massive efforts to its “anti-racism” and paying millions in tribute to BLM and other black causes. But now all that has quieted down a bit. I suspect that few still kneel or raise fists. (The “English national” team may be among the major holdouts!) The White fans have come back.
We have our teams and do care, even against our conscious will, about their fortunes. And we can’t help but marvel over good plays and statistics. Conclusions here aren’t easy. I suppose we will have to conclude that if someone can limit himself and his children to following local teams and playing or coaching the game at that level, then that might well be the better course.
But if not emotionally possible, then follow if you must but know that in this eleventh hour, there are probably far more important ways to spend one’s time and money. But we will not conclude with a puritanical demand that we abjure friends, pubs, camaraderie, and match day. Sports has been a dangerous vehicle to our civilization’s suicide as well as a distraction. But if we are to lose our nations to invaders, well, let us at least find solace in friendship among our own.
Hugh Perry, Lake Placid, New York
Editor’s note: The H&D team are all sports fans of one kind or another. Peter Rushton, who follows both Oldham Athletic and Mossley and myself, I follow both Wolves and Chorley, are big football fans. Peter also a big cricket fan and follows Lancashire County Cricket Club as well as the English national side. Tony Paulsen is more of a rugby union fan, although he does also follow the Croatian national football team and Ian Freeman is a longstanding rugby union supporter, having played the game at school, and follows the Welsh national team.
Even before the left-wing takeover of the English football team, I had long given up on them and followed Northern Ireland instead, partly because two of my boyhood Wolves heroes played for Northern Ireland, Derek Dougan (“the Doog”) and Danny Hegan, and later because of my support for the Ulster Loyalist cause.
So, I guess our answer is yes, the H&D team are nationalists and we do still support/follow professional sports teams. Many nationalists will strongly disagree with us and say that we should have nothing to do with professional sports anymore, and I can see their point, especially regarding the English/Scottish Premier Leagues, where almost every football club has forgotten its roots – sometimes intentionally – or if they haven’t, would like to do so – this being the case of (Glasgow) Celtic and Rangers in Scotland, and to a lesser extent, and for slightly different reasons, Tottenham Hotspur (AKA the Yids) in England.
The Tottenham/Yid situation is a strange one, which I will cover in an article in a future issue of H&D. They were always known as a “Jewish club”, although not as high profile as Leeds United who were known for many years as “The Jewish club.” Leeds – like Tottenham – had a large Jewish population, and were owned in their golden years by Jewish families. However Leeds fans unlike Tottenham were never Yids.
However, I digress. Even though I don’t go in person to Molineux Stadium and watch Wolves in person anymore (and even if I wanted to it would be very difficult for me to obtain match day tickets, and even if I could, would I really want to pay £50 plus to sit in the stand?) I do still watch most of their live TV games on Sky Sports and BT Sports – mainly down my local pub, with my mates over a pint or six!
However, I do go and support my local non-league teams, Chorley almost every home game and to a lesser extent Bamber Bridge. For one thing the overall atmosphere at these non-league grounds, is so much better than the over-priced plastic Premier League. The fans know most of the players, management, and even the owners – who also come into the social club afterwards for a drink – which would be unthinkable higher up the league pyramid. It’s more of a family and less of a business at non-league level, and perhaps that’s the attraction.
I will leave the final words to a nationalist friend I used to know many years ago in the West Midlands, who followed West Bromwich Albion FC (WBA) – who at the time were Wolves’ main local rivals – in the 1970s. Those older H&D readers who are also keen football fans will remember that WBA were one of the first “big teams” to sign black players, and in their case not just one but three (Laurie Cunningham, Brendon Batson and Cyrille Regis) – who became known as “The Three Degrees” (named after the famous black American female vocal group).
I once asked my friend (pulling his leg so to speak), “how can you support WBA when they have three blacks playing for them?”. He answered me back, “Mark, I supported WBA long before they had any black players, and I will still be supporting them when all the blacks have gone”. Good answer. Even from a Baggies fan!
This article first appeared in issue #113 (March-April 2023) of Heritage and Destiny magazine
Fascism, Women and Democracy – by Mosleyite veteran Norah Elam
Many British publications and institutions – including the National Archives, British Library, and universities throughout the UK – are celebrating Women’s History Month.
But few are likely to mention the fact that Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was supported by many of the women who had previously been active ‘suffragette’ campaigners.
Among them was Norah Elam (1878-1961) who was imprisoned in 1914 for her militant campaigning in favour of votes for women, and was interned at the same London prison – Holloway – in 1940 because of her active role in Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.
Though she lived with fellow Mosleyite Dudley Elam (who was similarly interned without trial under the notorious Regulation 18b) and she took his name, Norah was never actually married to him, as she could not obtain a divorce from the husband she had married in 1909, so legally remained Norah Dacre Fox.
Alongside her prominent role in the women’s section of the BUF, Norah Elam was also a militant campaigner for animal rights and against vivisection.
As part of H&D‘s contribution to Women’s History Month – and as a tribute to those women who continue to play important roles in the intellectual and practical leadership of racial nationalism – H&D is republishing online this essay by Norah Elam, first published in The Fascist Quarterly in 1935.
Fascism, Women and Democracy
“Experience shows that in all countries today democracy can develop its nature freely, the most scandalous corruption is displayed without anyone considering it of use to conceal its rascalities… Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers.” – Georges Sorel, Reflexions sur la Violence.
To a genuine cynic who lived through the struggle for votes for women from 1906 to 1914, no spectacle is more diverting than the post-war enthusiast whose one obsession seems to be the alleged danger to enfranchised women in a Fascist Britain.
This unsuspected solicitude finds its most insistent champions in unlikely places, and those who were so bitter against the pre-war struggle have today executed a complete volte face. Our new-found patrons are second to none in their determination that women shall be denied nothing in principle, even if in practice they are to be denied most things essential to their existence.
To the woman who took part in that historic fight, and, regarding the vote merely as a symbol, believed that with its help a new and a better world might be possible, this kind of patronage is as distasteful as was that of a generation ago. She thinks, and with some justification, that it is humbug that those who in all those weary years never raised a hand to help her, but on the contrary were wont to describe her as an unsexed virago or a disappointed spinster, should in the hour of success endeavour to exploit her sex in the interests of a reactionary and decadent system. Such effrontery is possible only because those who resort to it entirely misunderstood and still misunderstand the meaning of that struggle, and construed the demand for political liberty as a desire for personal licence.
The time has come when the principles which underlay that remarkable and determined manifestation for ordered change, not only in the position of women but in the accepted attitude to them, should be restated.
What was it then, which underlay the passionate stirring that moved the hearts of thousands of women, and guided their heads, in those stormy years? It was not, as so many imagined, the ignoble desire of individual sex-interest, nor a struggle on behalf of women for their own sex alone. On the contrary, from the leaders to the most humble of the rank and file it was the fundamental belief, that in a world peopled by men and women and under a political system controlling the destinies of both sexes, the country which shut out from its councils the influence, viewpoint and talents of more than half its people, would be to that extent handicapped in working out the best system of government. If men were the victims of chaotic economic conditions, women suffered with them. If the social conditions under which men dragged out an almost hopeless existence were intolerable, they were equally so for their womenfolk.
Looking round on the great cities of their land, from north to south and from east to west, they saw housing conditions which man and woman agreed were a disgrace to modern civilization; watching the labour market, they gazed with apprehension on the spectre of insecurity which haunts the wage-earner and which is inherent in the old system. In the political field, they noted that, both in Home and Foreign policy, affairs were being conducted in such a manner as to strike terror into the heart of any person who cared deeply for Britain or realized the decadence that had already begun its erosion upon all parties of the State. They rose to demand that women should be called in on equal terms with men, to lend a hand before it was too late.
This uprising was in short a challenge to the old antagonisms and a call for co-operation in the corporate body of the State.
In this conception of practical citizenship, the women’s struggle resembles closely the new philosophy of Fascism. Indeed, Fascism is the logical, if much grander, conception of the momentous issues raised by the militant women of a generation ago. Nor do the points of resemblance end here. The Women’s movement, like the Fascist movement, was conducted under strict discipline, and cut across all Party allegiance; its supporters were drawn from every class and Party. It appealed to women to forget self-interest; to relinquish petty personal advantages and the privilege of the sheltered few for the benefit of the many; and to stand together against the wrongs and injustices which were inherent in a system so disastrous to the well-being of the race. Like the Fascist movement, too, it chose its Leader, and once having chosen gave to that Leader absolute authority to direct its policy and destiny, displaying a loyalty and a devotion never surpassed in the history of this country. Moreover, like the Fascist movement again, it faced the brutality of the streets; the jeers of its opponents; the misapprehensions of the well-disposed; and the rancour of the politicians. It endured the hatred of the existing Government, and finally the loneliness of the prison cell and the horror of forcible feeding. Its speakers standing in the open spaces and at the street corners were denied the right of free speech; it champions selling their literature spat upon and reviled; its deputations were manhandled. Suffragettes became the sport of any rowdy who cared to take the law into his own hands. To make the analogy the more exact, no calumny was too vile and no slander too base to set about the moral character of its leaders, or the aims and objects of the women who owed them allegiance.
Thus it came about that women welded together in such association had no illusions about political and party shibboleths, and when the sacred words “Democracy” and “Individual Liberty” were a commonplace on the lips of their detractors, they remembered that these things were done under a Liberal Administration, and by the champions of a Party which had made the democratic system the summit of its political wisdom. That under it, they were classed with criminals, lunatics and children. They argued and with some cogency, that if this were democracy then women had little to hope for from it.
Their experience as outlaws from the democratic system was as nothing compared with that which faced them, when they found themselves honoured citizens under its doubtful protection. They had earned, it is true, the right to individual liberty for a very brief space once every five years, but when they had put that fatal cross upon the ballot paper and closed the door of the polling booth behind them, from that moment they found themselves completely helpless before the democratic machine.
Though we shall be told that this was what we had fought for, a moment’s reflexion will show that this was regarded as but the symbol. Women never made the fatal error of imagining that because men voted they were necessarily free. It is the mark of the unintelligent woman today to suppose that a woman is free because she also votes, or that democracy can ever offer anything but the careful and organized exploitation of men and women who suffer it to exist.
Given the vote on a limited basis at the close of the War, women were also granted the right of entering Parliament, and the election in the late autumn of 1918 gave them their first opportunity. The Party system was already beginning to show the first signs of decay, and by the inexorable law of retributive justice, the Party which had given birth to democracy in Britain was in full retreat before its ungrateful offspring. Nevertheless, women in the first flush of their triumph turned to the then existing parties either as voters or prospective candidates.
My own distrust of Party politics made me chary of turning in this direction, and I preferred to stand as an Independent, going down with all the other women candidates on this occasion, save one. The exception was the Sinn Fein Countess Markievicz, who though a notorious and avowed enemy of Britain, found it a perfectly simple matter under the democratic system to secure election to the Parliament of the country which she had openly boasted that she would destroy, disintegrate and discredit. She was, if I remember rightly, returned unopposed. The next example was hardly more encouraging, for the first woman to be elected for an English constituency was an American-born citizen who had no credentials to represent British women in their own Parliament, save that she had married a British subject who found himself forced to the Upper House on the death of his father. Detractors of the Women’s Movement pointed with a hardly disguised satisfaction to this denouement, and were at pains to hold up this lady as a sorry specimen of feminine irresponsibility. They need not have been so personal, for she was no better and no worse than any other woman elected to the British House of Commons, as a result of years of effort and struggle of the militant women. It is a sorry fact, though none the less true, that the subsequent election of Party women to Westminster has not made one tittle of difference either to men or to women, and though many able women have joined the ranks of our elected representatives their influence has been wholly negligible on the destinies of Britain or her Empire. They, like their men colleagues, are simply cogs in the Party wheels of the democratic system, marching into the lobbies at the crack of the Party Whip, helpless before the Juggernaut of the official machinery which rolls on, crushing all initiative and independence before it, and reducing every person who owes it allegiance to a mere cipher for the carrying through of its policies and its measures. And if this be true of Parliament – and who can deny it? – it is even more true of the woman voter. She, too, is caught up in this inexorable system, a veritable slave to her Party organization.
To those who challenge this, the question must be put: What power has the woman member or the woman voter, under the present system, to alter any one policy of any government yet elected? Does the most enthusiastic admirer of the present system allege that women, no matter to what party they belong, are satisfied with the existing position of this country? Are they willing to see economic conditions whereby the employment figures have reached the incredible total of between two and three millions remain unchanged? Do they rest content with the spectacle of those derelict areas which strike despair into the heart of every living person? Are they indifferent to the decay of the agricultural districts and the plight of the farming industry and unconcerned with the appalling housing conditions which all parties alike deplore?
Turning to the vast field of Imperial and Foreign politics, is it to be contended that the bulk of British women desire to see the disintegration of the Empire, or the orientation of the present foreign policy of the alleged National Government, whereby pacts and commitments are being made in their names and in secret with the avowed enemies of this country, while at the same time we are being left defenceless, not only for the purposes of our own immediate defence, but if the need should arise to honour those commitments? Do we indeed know to what we are being committed; what this policy of collective security involves, or what is the sinister power which dictates it? “Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers,” says Georges Sorel. Have enfranchised women any power to check a Home or a Foreign policy dictated for the purpose of making that dream a living reality? Let it be remembered that when the time comes to foot the bill, we shall be driven as sleep to the slaughter, helpless before the results of these policies. What is the value of so-called freedom if it cannot give us the power to alter these momentous issues?
If it be true that the average woman voter wants none of these things, why, if she be free under the democratic system, does she permit them? If she possesses this freedom, is she not doubly and trebly guilty in suffering them for one hour longer? This is the test of her claim to a responsible part in the government of her country. If she has gained the necessary power and liberty under the existing system, the charge that she is incapable of playing a citizen’s part in the affairs of her country, and is in fact unfitted for responsibility, is proved up to the hilt.
None of these things is true. The truth will be found in the fact that there is no freedom either for men or for women under the present antiquated system. What fetters both men and women is that the Party system is in decay, and this is the more noticeable since the granting of adult suffrage under an unbridled democracy. Throughout the world the same decadence has set in, by the inevitable march of time and circumstance, the change from a world of poverty to a world of boundless plenty makes ordered planning not only requisite but vital to existence. Under these changes the methods of the old world are obsolete and must give place to the new. If women are to be worthy of their place in the councils of the nation, they must face as realists the new world conditions which are gathering round them. Sooner or later they must choose. The decision is momentous, for upon it will depend the status of women for a considerable period of time. It is therefore no light matter that they should weigh well in the balance the history of the world.
There are two courses open to women. The first is that she should struggle on with the decaying system of the old world, content to be the handmaid of the professional politicians of the various parties to which she attaches herself. Of this it may be said that she has given it a long and faithful trial, and that if under it she could have accomplished any practical change in the direction of social, political or economic freedom, she has lamentably failed. She must now consider whether the fault lies within herself or within the system to which she still clings. In this connexion she will note that the separate parties are themselves gradually disappearing. The Liberal Party has passed into the twilight of the past; the Conservative Party is in rapid disintegration, and we know upon the assurance of its own Leader, that there is no hope of its regaining its independence. The same fate awaits the Socialist Party, since it too must travel along the same road which has sucked the other two parties under the quicksand of Social Democracy.
She must therefore look for some better system; one more in accord with modern conditions. What is to take the place of the tottering edifice of the past?
Every student of politics realizes that the issue now lies between Fascism and Communism. So far as British women are concerned, Communism makes little appeal. To go no further, it is the philosophy of destruction, and is the negation of the natural instincts of womanhood. It is the antithesis of every principle and practice which women value and require.
Fascism seems to be the only solution. It has within it every principle peculiarly suitable and adaptable to the genius of the British character. It offers real freedom and liberty to all men and women of goodwill towards this country. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, we shall define these so often loosely-used terms, in words with which no democrat will quarrel, for they are taken from that apostle of unadulterated democracy, John Stuart Mill.
“The sole end,” he wrote, “for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”
This is precisely the Fascist conception of individual liberty, and it is obviously a conception that so far as women are concerned gives them every opportunity that they can legitimately require in their future status as women citizens. In no other system are these principles embodied. Moreover, in the machinery of the Corporate State, Fascism assures women an equal status with their menfolk, for it holds within it the only means whereby they will be enabled to direct and control the conditions under which they shall live; thus Fascism alone will complete the work begun on their behalf by the militant women from 1906 to 1914. In addition, it will rescue them from the vitiated atmosphere of corruption inherent in the Party system, and for the first time it will give an opportunity, through the machinery of their own special Corporations, tackling with some hope of success those great questions which so closely concern their own and their children’s lives.
In the economic field it will assure security with equal pay for equal work, that eternal bone of contention which has rent the sexes asunder with such dire results to industry.
In the social sphere, it removes all class barriers, while in the political, it gives justice and equality for the first time in the history of the Women’s struggle.
And most important of all, Fascism comes to lay for ever the haunting spectre of war, by removing the fundamental causes, which exist and have their being in Internationalism, an instrument forged for the purpose of enabling “unscrupulous financiers” to take advantage of that “land of plenty” called “democracy” of which they dream.
To enable all this to be accomplished, Fascism will require that women equally with men should offer a disciplined cooperation in the welding together of an ordered State, and Fascism will rightly lay upon all the citizens of the State the responsibility and the duty of working in harmony, not in the interests of any section or class but for the benefit of all its people. It will call upon women as upon men, to subordinate all selfish individual privileges, that the less fortunate may under its protection be safe from exploitation.
This is Fascism. All else is mirage. Is it to be said that British women cannot rise to this great occasion in the history of their country? Those who would bid them reject this opportunity are the enemies not alone of women, but of all progress and of civilization. Those women who endured the ordeal of the great struggle of pre-war days have at least learned the right to challenge the people who once again would enslave them in the subjugation of the past, and fetter them within a system which denies them all opportunity to play an honourable part in the necessary reorganization of their country. British women have never failed or faltered when Britain has had need of them. They too, with the men of their generation, will raise aloft the banner of British Fascism, and bearing it high above the turmoil and sordid quarrels of the Party system, will hasten that day which shall see their nation reborn. In that triumphant hour, they will have truly earned the proud right to pay homage to a regenerated and Great Britain, and to rest at last within the Peace, Security and Prosperity of her Sovereign People.
CoViD and race – leaked files reveal how nationalists missed the epidemic’s true story
This morning’s edition of the Daily Telegraph, continuing its publication of leaked WhatsApp messages exchanged by senior ministers and officials during the CoViD pandemic – thoroughly vindicates H&D‘s stance published as early as the summer of 2020.
It was clear to us that these early stages of the pandemic proved the failure of our multiracial, multicultural society. Certain minority groups showed no respect for our laws and no respect for the interests of Britain’s wider community. Instead they either selfishly pursued their own profit (while risking public health) or became obsessed by primitive voodoo superstitions.
As a consequence, the government was seeking to enforce lockdown within law-abiding indigenous British communities, while unable to act against blatant flouting of pandemic regulations among minority communities.
On the basis of leaked WhatsApp messages, today’s Telegraph alleges: “Ministers feared that Covid was spreading more rapidly among non-compliant communities but were worried they would be
labelled ‘racist’ if they highlighted the issue.”
H&D first exposed this issue on 20th July 2020, adding further details on 12th August and 18th August, followed by an analysis of the broader pandemic issues by one of the very few leading British nationalists with serious scientific qualifications – our correspondent Ian Freeman – on 3rd October 2020.
Meanwhile, we now know (thanks to the Telegraph‘s revelations this morning) that the Health Secretary Matt Hancock and junior health minister Nadine Dorries were privately discussing some of the very same issues.
On 20th August (two days after H&D‘s publication of its third article on this topic) Dorries wrote to her boss Hancock that the government could not credibly “put whole towns and villages with extremely low R rates in lockdown (our voters) and deprive those people of work and family, because of the behaviour of non-compliant communities.”
Hancock expressed disbelief that local council leaders had failed to act, and Dorries emphasised that this was a matter of racial politics. Andy Burnham (Labour Mayor of the Greater Manchester region that includes Oldham) “will not agree”, wrote Dorries, “nor will any of the MPs or any of Oldham leaders. They [would] be locking down their voters and setting ours free.”
In other words, exactly as H&D wrote at the time, pandemic rates were rocketing in Asian areas of Oldham (packed with Labour voters) but much lower and in some cases negligible in White areas in and around Oldham (more likely to vote Conservative in 2019-2020 but where nationalists achieved very high votes in the early 2000s).
Dorries reminded Hancock about the 2001 race riots, before her days as an MP but when she had been working as special adviser to a Tory frontbench spokesman. She warned that such towns remained a tinderbox, and gave the Pendle area of Lancashire as an example. “The town ward of Colne, 18 pubs, white working class, would be like a tinder box if its pubs closed because of non-compliance and infection rates in Nelson, 2 pubs, Pakistani community next door.”
Dorries was correctly echoing H&D‘s arguments, but while ministers understood the facts, they ignored one important aspect. Twenty years ago nationalists in Lancashire had high quality leadership, before Nick Griffin chose to wreck his own party. Yet in the 2020s nationalist leaders totally failed to observe those political aspects of the pandemic expertly laid out for them by H&D. Once again, British nationalists were lions led by donkeys. A political open goal was missed, and many nationalist activists continued to pursue ridiculous voodoo obsessions rather than serious analysis.
The May-June edition of H&D will examine these leaked WhatsApp messages: we hope it is not too late for our movement to relearn some of the basics of political and racial reality.
Obituary – Ian (‘Lofty’) Lofthouse: 1966-2023
H&D recently received the sad news that former England First candidate, Ian (‘Lofty’) Lofthouse had died on February 18th at Royal Blackburn Hospital, after a very short illness, aged only 56.
In 2007 Lofty stood as an EFP candidate in Higher Croft ward in south-east Blackburn, which at the time was a Labour/Liberal Democrat marginal.
He polled 266 votes (15.2%) coming third, and beating the Tory candidate by three votes!
What will surprise younger readers is that this was not regarded as a particularly good vote – for that time! We had hoped to poll 20% and maybe get a second place. My, how times have changed for nationalist candidates – who would almost bite your hand off for that sort of vote now!
Although not active for many years, Lofty was a regular fixture at most of H&D’s Memorial Meetings (including our most recent one in Preston in September 2022), and at nationalist and loyalist social-events in Blackburn and Preston.
Both H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton and myself had known Lofty for almost 20 years. He was not “everybody’s cup of tea” I grant you, and in the pub he never volunteered to buy a round! But that was just Lofty for you!
Lofty was a massive football fan, and for many years followed his beloved Blackburn Rovers, both home and away. In latter years he did not go to Ewood Park very often – the prices scared him off! Instead, he would come along with us to watch non-league football at Chorley FC.
It’s ironic that in the new issue of H&D magazine the lead story is – “Should nationalists follow and/or support professional sports teams?” – Lofty’s answer would have been a 100% yes. He supported “England” in almost every sport going, not just football, cricket, and rugby, but even athletics, tennis and even swimming!
It is incredible to think that it was only just over three years ago that we were with him at the funeral of Lofty’s father (Brian Lofthouse), in Pleasington, Blackburn. Which is where his funeral will take shortly. Lofty – we will miss you buddy.
Mark Cotterill
Editor, Heritage and Destiny
The limits of ‘free speech’ – PA purged from Twitter (again)
Many nationalists (including H&D) hoped that Elon Musk was being sincere when he promised that his takeover of Twitter would lead to a new approach in favour of ‘free debate’.
Unfortunately, recent decisions show that (after a brief experiment) it’s back to business as usual.
Last night several accounts associated with Patriotic Alternative – including the main PA account as well as Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Sam Melia, and Merseyside activist James Costello – were simultaneously banned for “hateful conduct”.
No one has yet quoted exactly what was posted to Twitter by PA that constituted “hateful conduct”. It seems likely that Twitter has simply panicked in response to a bullying campaign by the far left and the usual interest groups, whose policy on these matters dates back to their successful pressure on the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror during the 1930s to abandon their support for Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.
This pressure was primarily via an advertising boycott, notably by large Jewish businesses such as the Lyons Corner Houses, a very well-known chain of tea shops owned by Isidore Salmon.
How should nationalists respond to the latest Twitter bans?
First of all, as in the case of Donald Trump, the message should be: “put not your trust in tycoons”. Billionaires (almost by definition) are not going to be on the side of racial nationalism, even though they might sometimes strike poses that give that impression.
Second, avoid defeatism. There is no “all powerful conspiracy” operating against us. Instead there are many attempts to conspire against us, some more successful than others and some contradicting each other, but all of them ultimately doomed to failure because we stand for truth and civilization.
The British people and other White European peoples are waking up to the need to defend their race and culture. No ban or boycott is going to change that fact. H&D looks forward to Patriotic Alternative continuing to make gigantic contributions to the White European renaissance.
Death of “Thatcher’s Spy”
Willie Carlin – the MI5 agent inside the IRA, whose autobiography Thatcher’s Spy was reviewed by Mark Cotterill in H&D #100 – died from CoViD complications on 6th February, though his death was only announced today. Carlin had been living under a new identity since 1985, when he was ‘exfiltrated’ from Ulster after being betrayed by a traitor within MI5, Michael Bettaney.
Coincidentally, Carlin died just a fortnight before the death of Henry McDonald, the Ulster journalist who edited Thatcher’s Spy for publication.
As Mark explained in his review, Carlin was a working-class Catholic who served in the British Army and was recruited by MI5 to infiltrate the IRA and its political wing Sinn Fein from 1974-80 then, after a short hiatus, from 1981-85. His work is credited with helping force the IRA away from terrorism towards the ballot box.
Of course, now more than ever, this can be seen as a mixed blessing. Carlin’s deployment coincided with a strategy pushed by MI5’s sister service MI6 (and carried out principally by MI6 officer Michael Oatley) which led towards the present attempts to surrender Ulster’s identity in favour of the ‘Protocol’ deal with Dublin and the European Union.
Carlin himself probably welcomed that process. We might never know (though we can guess) the extent to which senior IRA commander Martin McGuinness was also working hand in glove with sections of the secret state in London (themselves under pressure from ‘allies’ in Washington).
MI5’s intelligence successes against the IRA offered the opportunity to crush republican terrorism once and for all – an opportunity that sadly was ignored in favour of US-brokered ‘compromise’.
But recent weeks have shown that all is not lost. If the unionist and loyalist communities can unite, then the treacherous successors of those IRA terrorists who were exposed by Carlin, might yet be defeated.
Merry Christmas from H&D
To all our loyal subscribers, supporters and friends:
Especially during this time of year, we remember our many friends whose generous support has enabled us to carry on publishing throughout the past 12 months, and made 2022 another productive year for H&D.
We also remember those subscribers who have passed away during the past year.
On behalf of all the H&D team, I send you Yuletide Greetings and wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy and prosperous New Year.
With best wishes of the festive season,
Mark Cotterill, Editor – Heritage and Destiny
Madrid authorities seek to jail H&D writer in blatant political prosecution
Isabel Peralta – European correspondent of H&D who recently addressed our meeting in Preston – is in court this week in Madrid, where the authorities aim to jail her for three years.
The case has been brought under Spain’s equivalent of the UK’s racial incitement laws, but as our assistant editor Peter Rushton explains in this article, Isabel is being targeted in blatant political machinations: not only by the Spanish government, but also by lobbyists working in the interests of the Moroccan government.
For this and other reasons which we shall disclose in a later article, the prosecution of Isabel Peralta is a disgrace to Spanish justice. If she is convicted, the matter will be appealed if necessary as far as the European Court. Spanish politicians and Moroccan lobbyists are the true criminals, working against the interests of Spain and against the interests of Europeans.
The case dates back to 18th May 2021, when a demonstration was held outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid by a Spanish nationalist youth group. Isabel was at the time a leading activist in this group.
In an interview and speech, both of which were later broadcast on YouTube, Isabel explained the purpose of this demonstration: to draw attention to the attempted blackmail being exerted by the Moroccan Government, who were threatening to flood Spain with immigrants unless Spain accepted Moroccan control over Western Sahara.
This is a diplomatic dispute that has been going on for more than half a century, ever since Spain gave up its colonial control over the province once known as Spanish Sahara. Morocco seeks to grab the entire area for itself, but is opposed by an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.
It is in Spaniards’ economic interest to back the Polisario, partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas. But for the past two years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.
Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood, just as it fails to resist mass immigration from elsewhere.
Essentially this was the background to the demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.
Isabel’s interview and speech was making a serious and well-informed case. She explained that the demonstrators had come to the Embassy “to stand up to the indecency of our politicians who look the other way, while we suffer unprecedented racial replacement”.
She emphasised that “the problem here is not Morocco. The problem is what purports to be our own government, which with impunity sets off this explosion: the arrival of immigrants on a massive scale.”
Since politicians were not prepared to stand up to the Moroccan government’s blackmail, Spanish nationalist youth had to come forward. Isabel concluded her interview with words that require some explanation to British readers: “We shall not allow another Green March.”
The Green March – on 6th November 1975 – was the deliberate incursion by 350,000 Moroccans (organised by their government) into what was still Spanish colonial territory, in what is now Western Sahara. Because Spain was beginning its decolonisation, its soldiers were ordered not to open fire and to accept what was essentially an invasion.
So the Green March was a Spanish surrender, abandoning their responsibility to their former colonial subjects. Spain signed the so-called Madrid Accords, which effectively rewarded Morocco for their illegal invasion. (Part of the problem was that this was happening during the last weeks of General Franco’s life: he was dying and incapable of exercising any political authority.)
During her speech to the rally outside the Moroccan Embassy, Isabel picked up the theme that had concluded her interview: “Now as in 1975, they are trying again and they are coming with force, and 5,000 now seems like a lot to us, but in ten years they will seem like few, because if we do not stop them this will be our future: immigration in Europe will supplant our race, our diversity, our religion and our culture, and we are the only ones who are going to fight for it.”
The context is very clear: Isabel is correctly comparing the surrender in 1975, when the Spanish government gave in to Moroccan invaders and betrayed the indigenous people of Western Sahara, to the potential surrender in 2021-2022, when today’s Spanish government is similarly weak in the face of Moroccan threats.
It turned out that Isabel was absolutely correct. Not only has the Madrid government continued to allow floods of immigrants, it has also surrendered to Morocco’s blackmail. In March 2022, almost a year after Isabel’s comments, Spain’s socialist government carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position, abandoning the decades-long Spanish policy that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants.
The U-turn threatens vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas from Algeria.
The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.
As so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.
This time it is our correspondent Isabel Peralta who is on the frontline. As they prepared their surrender to Morocco, the Spanish authorities launched a prosecution of Isabel, which has come to court in Madrid this week. Prosecutors are asking for her to be jailed for up to three years.
In presenting her interview and speech as inciting racial violence, prosecutors have deliberately ignored its political context. They have not only deliberately distorted her speech, they have even omitted crucial words from the transcript. Isabel clearly said that the demonstration was anti-immigration, but not motivated by hatred of any race. Such hatred, she emphasised, would be absurd since our entire political outlook is based on recognition of racial differences. We are motivated, she pointed out, “by admiration and devotion to our own race in the face of a threat to its very existence”.
The political manipulation at the heart of this case is obvious from official papers that I have examined.
Ten days after the demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, an employee of a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. Later the same day these police officers sent a report to the prosecutors: this was the first step in the process leading to Isabel’s criminal trial.
The political police (duly followed by prosecutors) presented Ms Bencrimo’s complaint against Isabel as though it reflected a charity standing up for ordinary immigrants who felt threatened by Isabel’s words. In the entire prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages, which I have studied in detail, Ms Bencrimo’s is the only complaint from anyone outside Spanish officialdom.
Yet the organisation this complainant represented – the Ibn Battuta Foundation – is not as simple as police and prosecutors pretend.
Its president is Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, a veteran politician and businessman with close personal and financial ties to the Moroccan government – the very people whose actions were being exposed and criticised in Isabel’s speech.
Chaib is a former MP in both the Catalan and Madrid parliaments for the left-wing party PSC (Socialists Party of Catalonia). But he is also a wealthy businessman with financial interests in his native Morocco, and in particular stands to benefit from Morocco taking control of Western Sahara. Since 1992 he was been director of business development in Morocco for COMSA Industrial, a company with vast interests in engineering and construction projects in Morocco, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara.
It is a remarkable coincidence that the “charity worker” who brought the complaint against Isabel Peralta was an employee of Chaib’s foundation.
H&D fully supports our brave and brilliant comrade Isabel. We look forward to her victory over this politically motivated prosecution – however long that victory takes.
We shall be reporting further on the development of this case, and on the related political persecution of Isabel in Germany, which was assisted by border security in our own country who disgracefully detained her for more than six hours a few weeks ago during her visit to England. Check this website and our January edition of H&D for more extraordinary revelations about the state of European justice.
[video update] Great success for H&D’s Richard Edmonds, Colin Jordan & John Tyndall Memorial Meeting
Over seventy nationalists from different parties and groups attended the Heritage and Destiny 2022 Richard Edmonds, Colin Jordan & John Tyndall Memorial Meeting, held in Preston, Lancashire on Sunday 25th September 2022. Video is now online at H&D‘s new Odysee channel.
Meeting Chairman was Keith Axon: a former NF & BNP organiser, and longstanding friend of both John Tyndall and Richard Edmonds.
For the first time we had two women speakers and would have had three had Julie Lake not been prevented from attending due to a family bereavement. This was one of many aspects of this year’s meeting that both on the panel and in the audience showed the increasing diversity of European nationalism.
For the fourth time we also had an international guest whom we kept secret until the last moment. H&D‘s European correspondent Isabel Peralta overcame a six-hour detention by UK Border Force and (after having only 90 minutes sleep!) was able to attend and speak in England for the first time.
Our Spanish guest was delighted to meet so many excellent new comrades especially her fellow speaker Laura Towler, deputy leader of Patriotic Alternative. Isabel and Laura are an inspiration to a new generation of intelligent young women across Europe who know that women have an even greater stake than men in rescuing European civilization.
Laura and her husband Sam Melia brought the youngest ever attendee to an H&D event, their baby Catherine whom we can already see is a remarkably attentive and disciplined comrade! While Catherine was our youngest audience member, our oldest included subscribers from Salford (former BNP activists) and Warwickshire (a former NSM activist).
Our audience and speaker panel included a former Member of the European Parliament, an elected borough councillor, and four former borough councillors.
Benny Bullman launched the meeting with a fine tribute to the founder of Blood & Honour, Ian Stuart, who was born 65 years ago in the Lancashire town of Poulton-le-Fylde. Benny’s organisation Rock Against Communism had just a few days ago held a commemoration for the 29th anniversary of Ian’s death. Benny emphasised that great comrades such as Ian Stuart still live with us in spirit and we are all determined to be worthy of their legacy.
Laura Towler then explained the cultural mission of Patriotic Alternative, which for the past three years has been fighting to get across the message that White Lives Matter – across a broad front of activities from demonstrations to leafletting, mountain hikes to tea retailing! PA has grown rapidly in its three years of existence, despite the handicaps of pandemic conditions, and has combined some of the best veterans of older nationalist parties with a proven ability to attract the best of the younger online nationalist community.
After our lunch interval, a brief unscheduled speech was given by Mike Whitby of British Voice, advertising a forthcoming demonstration regarding the still unsolved murder of Blackpool schoolgirl Charlene Downes. (This demo went ahead with speeches including this pertinent observation by Alek Yerbury from Yorkshire PA.)
Isabel Peralta (speaking in Spanish with an English translation being read by Peter Rushton) explained that our faith in the true European cause was capable of moving mountains: the united force of national socialists across the world will rescue Europe from its kidnappers. We close our ranks with the spirit of those who preceded us: we have truth on our side. National socialism is not a utopia or a historical curiosity, but a vital living idea. Our activists will not be swayed by careerist considerations or media hostility.
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, archaeologist and former Bradford city councillor, now chairman of the British Democrats, hailed the breakdown of the multiracial, multicultural society. Based partly on his father’s experiences in the British Raj as well as recent events in Leicester, Jim argued that the non-White takeover of many towns and cities was now leading to intense conflict between rival non-White factions. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics, and within the past year have achieved some strong results at the ballot box.
Professor John Kersey, educationalist and musician, who leads several international university-level institutions dedicated to bespoke professional education for high achievers, gave a cogent analysis of the burgeoning threats to traditional British values and freedoms – and to the Christian values that are the bedrock of British and European civilization. The dictatorial grip of the political establishment is at last being resisted: the forces of resistance are no longer marginalised – our agenda of maintaining and restoring British traditions is now at the centre of political debate.
Stephen Frost – National Secretary of the British Movement, longstanding friend of Colin Jordan and author of the Colin Jordan biography ‘TWAS A GOOD FIGHT’!, acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – in the spirit of Richard Edmonds, Colin Jordan and John Tyndall. CJ and JT had famously fallen out, but only for a very short time in the mid-1960s, and while operating in different movements and styles they shared a core ideological commitment. Our task is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: the propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values.
Peter Rushton – Assistant Editor of Heritage and Destiny magazine, historian, author of the new Real History Blog, and TV commentator, pointed out that our previous Preston gathering had been in 2017 which was the year that the word ‘woke’ entered the Oxford English Dictionary. Wokeness means the opposite of ‘awake’ – it means passive acceptance of the surrender of our civilisation. More than a century ago the early Labour movement’s anthem was not the Red Flag but England Arise – which included lines that would today be supported more by adherents of our cause than by 21st century leftists.
Peter also examined the development of the UK’s oppressive race laws, which have now been extended to use of the misnamed Terrorism Act for the purpose of political harassment. The previous evening our Spanish guest Isabel Peralta had been detained for hours at Manchester Airport under the Terrorism Act, which meant that she and Peter had less than 90 minutes sleep before heading to the meeting!
A separate article later this week will discuss this outrageous abuse of the Terrorism Act.
In addition to the speakers there was an auction and raffle of items donated by H&D‘s friends around the world.
In his speech of thanks to these donors and to our speakers, H&D editor Mark Cotterill said that having now published 110 issues of our magazine, we are determined to carry on as one of the very few hard-copy nationalist publications still in existence. We believe that even in the world of Facebook and YouTube there is an important role for hard-copy publications but of course we depend on subscribers and donors to make our publication possible.
Special thanks to the British Movement Women’s Division who provided an excellent buffet; and to the British Movement Leader Guard who carried out security duties in their usual highly efficient manner to ensure that our speakers and audience were entirely safe from the ‘antifa’ violence that sometime targets nationalist events.
Before the meeting and during the intervals, our audience browsed stalls from several different nationalist groups and journals.
H&D Issue 111 published
The new issue (#111) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 32-page, November-December 2022 issue, has as its lead:
Over 70 Nationalists attend H&D’s first Memorial Meeting for five years
Issue 111
November – December 2022
Contents include:
- Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
- Financial markets crush British government: Indian plutocrat installed as Prime Minister – by Peter Rushton
- Kyiv versus Kremlin – four H&D writers give their opinion on Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine – by Ian Freeman, Peter Rushton, Kenneth Schmidt and Alec Suchi
- Book Review: A Voice in the Twilight: The Life and Thought of Otto Strasser by Tomasz Kosinski, edited by Troy Southgate – reviewed by Ian Freeman
- ‘Post-fascist’ party wins Italian election, while in Sweden nationalists are now the second largest party – by Peter Rushton
- CD Review – Run Silent, Run Deep, by Whitelaw – reviewed by Craig Dale
- Right to Reply – Reflections on “Civic Nationalists” and “Eastern Mystics” – by Hugh Perry
- McDonald’s and Looking at Screens will Rot our Minds and Souls – by Gordon Stridiron
- Movie Review: Against the Ice – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
- Book Review – Antifascism – The Course of a Crusade, by Paul Gottfried – reviewed by Gil Caldwell
- Remembering Three Great British Nationalists: H&D Memorial to Richard Edmonds, Colin Jordan and John Tyndall – a report on the H&D Memorial Meeting held in Preston on September 25th, 2022
- Does GB News offer a genuine alternative to the Mainstream Media or is it merely ‘controlled opposition”? – by Alec Suchi
- From the Other Side of the Pond – by Kenneth Schmidt
- Two full pages of readers’ letters.
- Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton.
If you would like a sample copy, please send £5.00 / $10.00 or for a year’s (six issues) subscription, send £32.00 (UK) – £45.00 / €55 (Europe) – £50 / $100 (Australia and New Zealand) – $60.00 (USA) – $70.00 Canada) – £50.00/$100.00 (Rest of World).
