The Heritage and Destiny Annual Meeting 2023:  “Honour the Past – Conquer the Future” – three days to go!

The Heritage and Destiny Annual Meeting – “Honour the Past – Conquer the Future”
now just three days away – will be held on
Saturday 9th September
in Preston, Lancashire, 1pm – 6.00pm

This year we will be honouring Derek Beackon and Andrew Brons,
and remembering Sir Oswald Mosley and Ian Stuart Donaldson.

If you wish to attend this year’s meeting – which is now only two weeks away – please call our office numbers – 07833 677484 or 07868 294749 or 01772 702047 – for full details and directions to the venue which will be in Preston, not too far away from the city centre.  

Doors open at 12 noon and meeting will start at 1pm prompt. However, can you please aim to get to Preston for between 11.30am to 12 noon as we will have two redirection points (one for those coming by car and the other for those using public transport) in operation and we want to get everybody to the meeting venue in plenty of time. 

Derek Beackon
Andrew Brons

Admission (pay on the door) will be £20.00 per person (not including speakers and Patrons). There will be a discount for couples, pensioners, under 18s etc. All those attending will receive a free 4-page souvenir meeting programme, raffle tickets, and a couple of nationalist newspapers.

Please note the venue bar will be cash only so you won’t be able to use your plastic cards to buy drinks etc, so please remember to bring plenty of real money with you!

There will be literature/merchandise tables from several different groups at the meeting. Some of the merchandise tables will also be cash only (a few may also take cheques) so please also bear that in mind if you are planning to buy books, magazines, badges, flags, shirts etc.

We also need more raffle prizes, so if you have anything you can donate to the raffle (or auction) please let us know – or just bring it along on the day. 

There will be a complimentary buffet (including vegetarian) during the first break. The cash-bar will be open all through the meeting from 12 noon to 7pm. The raffle and the auction will be held just before the second break.

Speakers so far include (in alphabetical order) – Keith Axon (Meeting Chairman), Benny Bullman (Whitelaw & British Movement), Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative), Stephen Frost (British Movement), Prof. John Kersey (educationalist & musician), Dr. Jim Lewthwaite (British Democrats), Peter Rushton (Heritage & Destiny) and Laura Towler (Patriotic Alternative). Plus an overseas speaker.

Those of you are coming by train/coach, please book up well in advance, or else all the cheap seats will be gone. The closest train/coach station to the venue is Preston. Likewise, if you need overnight accommodation in Preston, book now to get the best deals (call our office for advice if necessary). We understand that several of the meeting attendees are staying in nearby Blackpool/Fylde coast this year, where there is a far greater choice of B&B and hotel accommodation, so you may want to bear that in mind. If you are flying in the nearest airports are Manchester and Liverpool, both have direct trains to Preston. 

Sir Oswald Mosley
Ian Stuart Donaldson

There will be two socials – one on the Friday evening for those arriving the day before – and one after the meeting has finished on the Saturday evening. We have a great venue, which serves real ales and great food at very reasonable prices.  

If for whatever reason, you cannot attend the meeting, but would like to send a donation, to help with the meeting costs instead, that would be great. Please send cheques/postal/money orders (made payable to Heritage and Destiny) – only send cash if it’s sent by registered or recorded post – to Heritage and Destiny, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, or you can donate by BACs (Bank Transfer) to; Account name – Heritage and Destiny, Account number – 14144034, Sort code – 01 00 85: – Use your name and the words “H&D meeting” as reference. 

Thank you all once again for your fantastic support and we look forward to meeting you – fellow-nationalists – in Preston on Saturday 9th September.

H&D Issue 115 out now

The new issue (#115) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 32-page, July-August 2023 issue has as its lead:

H&D interview leading French revisionist and political prisoner Vincent Reynouard

Issue 115

July – August 2023

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Why the political class cannot be trusted to resolve the migration crisis – by Alec Suchi
  • Nationalists – both civic and racial – were crushed in the recent English local elections: Has this cleared the field for a new nationalist party? – by Peter Rushton
  • Who likes – and dislikes – Whom? – by Gil Caldwell
  • Book Review – Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – by Nigel Biggar – reviewed by Peter Rushton
  • Obituary – Professor Roger Pearson M.Sc. (Econ), Ph.D., (London) 1927 – 2023 – by Mark Cotterill
  • Time for nationalists to decide: are we serious? – by Peter Rushton
  • Football – The Roots of the Game – “Footer” – by James Collyer
  • H&D interviews leading French Revisionist Vincent Reynouard – Part I – by Peter Rushton
  • The Ladder Strategy and Community Politics are not the answer – by Alek Yerbury
  • From the Other Side of the Pond – by Kenneth Schmidt
  • Right to Reply – Reflections on  the Climate Change narrative – by Ian Freeman
  • Movie Review – The Three Musketeers: D’Artagnan – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
  • Book Review – Charlottesville Untold – Inside Unite the Right – by Anne Wilson Smith – reviewed by James Knight
  • Two full pages of readers’ letters.
  • Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton.

If you would like a sample copy of this issue please send £5.00 or $10.00 to Heritage & Destiny, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, England, UK – or if you would like to subscribe please go to  http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/publications/journal/  for full details or email  heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com

One law for them and one law for us?

A recent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service raises serious questions as to whether ‘anti-terrorist’ law in the UK is being enforced in a partisan manner, or whether there is one law for those perceived to be on the radical left, and another for those perceived to be on the radical right.

Press reports this week suggest that far leftists seem to have got away with defying the UK’s Terrorism Act, Schedule 7 – the same law that has been repeatedly used against H&D, most recently to detain our European correspondent Isabel Peralta and seize her phone and computer.

On Friday 23rd June, the CPS and the Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police announced there would be no further action against Ernest Moret, a publisher who works as foreign rights manager for the Paris firm La Fabrique.

Moret was detained at St Pancras station under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, on the evening of 17th April 2023 after travelling by Eurostar from Paris (as reported in H&D two months ago). He was en route to the London Book Fair, where his firm was working in close collaboration with another far-left publisher, London-based Verso Books.

He allegedly refused to provide UK police with the pin code for his mobile phone, leading to his arrest and transfer to a London police station where he was held until the following day, “on suspicion of wilfully obstructing a Schedule 7 examination”.

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 entitles UK police and border control officers to question anyone entering the country at any airport, seaport, or in this case rail terminal (classed as a “port of entry”). Those arriving (even if they are UK citizens) can be detained for up to six hours without any reason being given and without any evidence or specific suspicion against them.

Since this six-hour period begins when the interrogation starts, then in practice the detention period can be longer (as one can be kept for some time before questioning).  

Those detained are required to answer whatever questions are asked of them, and do not have the customary right to silence. They are obliged to hand over their possessions and provide any passwords, pin numbers etc needed for officers to be able to access electronic devices.

Any refusal to answer, or refusal to provide such access codes is regarded as an offence under the Terrorism Act.

Isabel Peralta addressing an H&D meeting in Preston last September, after her six-hour detention under Schedule 7 the previous night

Officers do not need to show any reasonable grounds for detaining and questioning someone under Schedule 7.  Although the rationale behind the law is to allow officers to obtain information relevant to anti-terrorist investigations, there is no implication that those detained are themselves terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism.

A joint statement by La Fabrique and Verso wilfully ignored this legal reality, claiming that Moret’s participation in leftwing protests in France against President Macron, had been cited “as a justification” for his detention and questioning. No such “justification” is necessary under Schedule 7, but Moret’s employers seem to believe that the far left is exempt from laws that apply to the rest of us, especially to the so-called ‘far right’.

H&D has always argued that nationalists should avoid unnecessary confrontations with the police. We have always maintained that (outside the specific context of Northern Ireland) paramilitary activity and anything resembling terrorism is unjustifiable and counter-productive to the cause of racial nationalism.

Accordingly, we have consistently argued that if detained under Schedule 7, then whatever we might think about the disproportionate and arbitrary powers conveyed by that law, nationalists should accept that this is (for now) UK law and we should cooperate with those enforcing it.

H&D’s editor Mark Cotterill has been detained twice at Manchester Airport under Schedule 7, once when returning from Cancun, Mexico, and once when returning from Adelaide, Australia. Assistant editor Peter Rushton was detained at London Stansted Airport in 2019 after returning from Düsseldorf. And most recently, in September last year our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was detained at Manchester Airport on arrival from Madrid. (click here to view an interview with Isabel about this Schedule 7 detention)

The latter case was especially serious, since not content with an interrogation lasting almost six hours, the authorities retained Isabel’s phone and computer for almost a week.

H&D is now writing to the Metropolitan Police and to the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, seeking clarification of the Moret case. Naturally we know no more about the circumstances of his arrest (and his later release) than what has appeared in press reports and police statements, but these raise troubling questions which must be answered if nationalists are to retain confidence in the impartiality of the police, and if we are to continue to recommend compliance with police investigations.

Background note:

Verso was founded in 1970 as New Left Books, and throughout its history the firm has specialised in works by Marxist authors. It is especially associated with the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’ of Marxist theorists.

Ernest Moret’s employer La Fabrique was founded in 1998 by the left-wing French Jewish author Éric Hazan. It has published several controversial extreme leftist texts including The Coming Insurrection, written by a so-called “Invisible Committee” and calling for a revolutionary uprising. Moret’s employer Hazan was investigated by French anti-terrorist police seeking to confirm that the author of The Coming Insurrection was in fact Julien Coupat, who was arrested in 2008 for “direction of a terrorist organisation” in connection with the organised sabotage of French railway lines.

Information leading to Coupat’s arrest (and subsequent court cases that ended in legal chaos and acquittals) was supplied to French police by Mark Kennedy, an undercover English police officer who had infliltrated Coupat’s organisation. Kennedy’s actions as a police spy are themselves now among many such undercover operations being examined by an official enquiry.

In other words, whatever Ernest Moret has or hasn’t done, the UK authorities knew that his employer La Fabrique was closely connected to someone who was the focus of a very long-running investigation into politically-motivated criminal activity. And they knew that this anarchism (predating Moret’s involvement with La Fabrique) had also involved people in England.

Nothing published in H&D has ever been the subject of criminal charges, and we have never published any article that recommends criminal behaviour. Outside the specific context of Northern Ireland, we have never endorsed paramilitary activity. It is quite clear that the questioning of Mark Cotterill, Peter Rushton and Isabel Peralta under Schedule 7 was in each case a “fishing expedition” for political intelligence, conducted in the latter case as a favour for the German authorities, and had no connection to any actual or suspected terrorist activity or any other offences against UK law.

H&D Issue 114 out now

The new issue (#114) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 32-page, May-June 2023 issue, has as its lead:

“Racial Replacement in New York City” – Jack Antonio on Brooklyn past and present

Issue 114

May – June 2023

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • There Goes the Neighborhood! A cautionary tale of White replacement by Jack Antonio
  • Tolkien, Fantasy and ‘the right’ – by Armand Berger
  • Energy crisis: There is a way out! – by Dr Gunther Kümel
  • Book Review – The Enemy of Europe: Then And Now – by Francis Parker Yockey, edited by Greg Johnson – reviewed by James Knight
  • As the SNP elect a new ‘Scottish’ leader, their Independence hopes fade – by Peter Rushton
  • Right to Reply – Reflections on “Nationalism, the movement and the Royal Family” – by William Mitchell
  • Was Roald Dahl’s “anti-semitism” based on experience? – by Peter Rushton
  • Movie Review: Hostile Territory – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
  • Sunak’s betrayal of Ulster – by Peter Rushton
  • Book Review The Tyranny of Human Rights: From Jacobinism to the United Nations – by Dr. Kerry Bolton – Part 2 of a review by Ian Freeman
  • Transcending the Tribe – Isabel Peralta on community as the root of social nationalism
  • A New Strategy for Securing the Realm? by Dr James B. Thring
  • 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 £35.00 (UK) – £45.00 / €55 (Europe) – £50 / $100 (Australia and New Zealand) – $60.00 (USA) – $70.00 Canada) – £50.00/$100.00 (Rest of World).

H&D’s Peter Rushton interviewed on RBN

Heritage and Destiny’s Peter Rushton

Yesterday H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton was interviewed by our old friend Don Wassall and his co-presenter Patricia Aiken on their Freedom Times News Hour.

Don’s connections with H&D go right back to the founding of the magazine in 1999, when he was guest speaker alongside the late Dr William Pierce at a meeting organised in Arlington, Virginia, by our editor and publisher Mark Cotterill.

Yesterday’s interview covered a wide range of topics, with the discussion mainly focused on introducing American listeners to developments in British and European nationalism, including the current election campaigns by nationalists such as Julian Leppert and Dr Jim Lewthwaite of the British Democrats; the recruitment of high-quality young campaigners by broader, non-electoral campaign groups such as Patriotic Alternative and the Traditional Britain Group; and the extraordinary repressive measures imposed by the political establishment across Europe, including the recent conviction of podcaster ‘Sven Longshanks’ (James Allchurch) and the jailing of French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard.

The Freedom Times (like H&D) is one of the few high quality print publications regularly produced by and for racial nationalists in the Anglosphere.

Click here to catch up with the Freedom Times News Hour interview with Peter Rushton.

In Memoriam: Ralph Hebden – a Real Political Soldier

It’s been almost ten years now since the funeral – on 24th April 2013 – of our comrade Ralph Hebden.  While others played at it, Ralph was a real Political Soldier, in every sense of the words. We will remember Ralph – along with other former comrades at this year’s H&D meeting in Preston, on Saturday September 9th.

Ralph died only a couple of months before another brave servicemen, Drummer Lee Rigby, who was murdered by two African immigrants in South London on May 22nd 2013. Lee of course is much better known (to the general public anyway) then Ralph, and there will be a number of commemorations in May to mark the tenth anniversary of his death – and rightly so.

Ralph Hebden serving in Afghanistan with 45 Commando

The loss of our comrade Ralph was very difficult to take in and even now I find it hard to believe he has really gone. Peter Rushton knew Ralph for fifteen years so it was fitting that he wrote the obituary in the July-August 2013 issue #55 of H&D magazine (see below).

I only had the honour of knowing Ralph for just over three years, but in that time we got to know each other we became good friends – as well as racial comrades. Ralph was a longstanding subscriber to H&D magazine and attended three of our annual John Tyndall Memorial Meetings in Preston, as well as many other activities and events in and around Lancashire.

Ralph Hebden like Lee Rigby was an active serviceman from the North-West England – he had proudly served his country for almost ten years in the Royal Marines and for fifteen years in the racial-nationalist movement. Both were excellent examples of the type of proud young Englishmen we are going to need on our side if we are ever going to take our country back from the Westminster traitors, who have sold our country away.  Both are still solely missed by their families, friends and comrades, but were welcomed by past heroes when they took their seats in the great hall of Valhalla. 

Mark Cotterill
Editor/Publisher – Heritage and Destiny

Ralph’s fellow North West serviceman Lee Rigby (above) was infamously murdered by African immigrants just two months after Ralph’s death.

––––––––––––––––

Ralph Hebden 1980-2013

Ralph Hebden – brave patriot, nationalist activist, Heritage and Destiny contributor and Royal Marine Commando – has died near his base in Arbroath at the tragically young age of 32.

Last seen alive early on the morning of 11th March, Ralph had been heading out for his regular morning run near the Arbroath cliffs.  His body was recovered from the sea three weeks later, a few miles further up the coast at Carlingheugh Bay.

Extensive land, air and sea searches had taken place in recent weeks, and several nationalist activists in Scotland had been interrogated by police, who seemed to be under the impression that Ralph’s disappearance had something to do with his politics.

Ralph married fellow Liverpudlian Sarah last year, and was looking forward to becoming a father for the first time.  His daughter Evie was born four days after his disappearance.

Ralph during one of his Afghan tours of duty

Joining as a Royal Marine reservist based in Liverpool, he became a regular in 2005 and served in a mortar unit of the elite 45 Commando, based at RM Condor near Arbroath. After one of the last Royal Marine tours in Ulster, and one tour in Iraq, Ralph completed several tours of duty in Afghanistan and was drafted in to assist with anti-terrorist security operations for the London Olympics last year.

Ralph’s unit were long-term specialists in Arctic and mountain warfare, but found themselves deployed in very different mountain operations against the Taliban, as well as peacekeeping in Helmand province.

As a lifelong nationalist activist, Ralph was very well aware of the political abuse of our armed forces in operations that have nothing to do with protecting Britain.  Nevertheless he did his duty and had an outstanding military record.

The same spirit of loyalty was evident in Ralph’s relations with fellow nationalist comrades, and he remained immune from the factional backbiting that characterises so much of our movement.  Even when he was targeted for abuse by a former Nick Griffin bodyguard, Ralph refused to respond in kind.

I knew Ralph since the late 1990s, when he attended BNP meetings across Lancashire, including one event in Todmorden that was attacked by “anti-fascists.”  Ralph became a regular at the monthly meetings I addressed in central Manchester until 2002, and in 1999 he accompanied Nick Griffin and myself as personal security inside the European election count at St George’s Hall, Liverpool.

After I split from Griffin in 2002, Ralph became an important contact for Heritage and Destiny inside the North West BNP, building bridges between various factions and regularly attending H&D events, including all three John Tyndall Memorial meetings in Preston, Lancashire.

Frequently travelling through Preston on his way between the Arbroath base and his family home in Liverpool, Ralph would stop off for a drink with the H&D team, and last year he and his future wife Sarah were our hosts in Liverpool – even though my team Oldham were playing against their team Liverpool at Anfield!

Following the death last year of his comrade and mentor John Fearns, ex-organiser of Liverpool BNP, Ralph was the author of an obituary published in H&D.  (At the time of course, as a serving Royal Marine, Ralph had to use a pseudonym.)

Ralph Hebden (second right) at one of the three H&D John Tyndall memorial meetings he attended in Preston, Lancashire, alongside speakers including British Army veteran Pete Barker, the late Richard Edmonds, and H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton, who had been a comrade of Ralph’s since his earliest days in nationalism.

When Ralph told me last October that he was about to become a father as well as a stepfather, I could see how happy he was to be starting a family.  Heritage and Destiny sends deepest sympathy to Sarah, her new born daughter, and all of Ralph’s family at this tragic time.

Ralph Hebden’s funeral took place in St Nicholas Church, Liverpool on 24th April, which was packed with friends and comrades from both the military and politics, followed by burial at Allerton Cemetery.  Comrades from several nationalist parties gathered to pay tribute, including fellow veteran and former Liverpool BNP organiser Steve Greenhalgh, current BNP organiser Mike Whitby, North West B&H organiser Ade Brooks, representatives of the National Front, English Democrats and UKIP, and Heritage and Destiny editor Mark Cotterill.

We then gathered at a central Liverpool pub for a wake in memory of a true comrade who will never be forgotten.  Despite pressure from senior military officers who wanted to suppress nationalist political connections, Ralph’s widow Sarah bravely attended the wake to thank comrades for their support.

Peter Rushton, Manchester, England

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.

Jackie Robinson – the first black player in Major League Baseball

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.

George Preston Marshall of the Washington Redskins was the last American football club owner to hold out in favour of segregation: the Redskins did not field a black player until 1962.

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.

The infamous ‘black power salutes’ at the 1968 Olympics

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.

Muhammad Ali was the first boxing champion to exult in theatrical, arrogant self-promotion

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.

Wrestling was once a drama of the humble and heroic ‘face’ against the arrogant and villainous ‘heel’: today both indulge in arrogant taunting and have abandoned ‘White’ standards of heroism. The first arrogant ‘face’ in wrestling was Hulk Hogan (above)

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

West Bromwich Albion was the first English club to promote black superstars with their so-called ‘Three Degrees’ (above left to right): Laurie Cunningham, Brendan Batson, and Cyrille Regis, seen here at a promotional event with the American trio whose stage name they adopted.


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.

Norah Elam, a leading activist in the women’s section of the British Union of Fascists

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.

Two of Norah Elam’s suffragette comrades – Annie Kenney (a working-class woman from Oldham) and Christabel Pankhurst, a middle-class woman from Manchester who achieved a law degree but was barred from the legal profession.

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.

Norah Dacre Fox in 1915: together with suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst, the future Norah Elam was at this point a militant patriotic supporter of Britain’s war effort against the Kaiser’s Germany, though she later became an advocate of Anglo-German cooperation.

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.

In 1914 militant suffragette Mary Richardson (1883-1961) was arrested for damaging a painting by Velázquez, the ‘Rokeby Venus’, at London’s National Gallery. She is seen here under arrest after this vandalism. Like several other ex-suffragettes, Mary Richardson later joined Mosley’s BUF, where she became head of the women’s section.

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.

Countess Markievicz (above), a supporter of IRA terrorism, became the first woman elected to the British Parliament. Despite having campaigned for women to have the vote, Norah Elam despised Markievicz and the IRA, and saw parliamentary democracy as a sham.

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?

The British Union of Fascists strongly supported farmers driven into poverty during the 1930s by the imposition of tithes, a form of taxation by the church. This was one of many issues where Norah Elam saw women and men having a common interest in challenging a rapacious and unjust system.

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.

The future Lady Mosley, then Diana Guinness (above, second right) with her sister Unity Mitford and the children of her first marriage to Bryan Guinness. Her eldest son Jonathan (above, far right) became chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, and today is his 93rd birthday.

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.

Members of the BUF Women’s Drum Corps

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.

Lady Mosley with her husband Sir Oswald Mosley and their son Max in 1940. They were both interned without trial that year under Regulation 18b.
Two of Europe’s leading racial nationalist activists of the new generation – Isabel Peralta and Laura Towler – at a Heritage and Destiny event in September 2022.

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.”

One of many weekly analyses of the spread of CoViD during summer 2020, showing extreme concentration in the Asian ghetto of Alexandra Park.

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).

Ministers feared a repeat of the Oldham and Burnley race riots of 2001 which helped produce electoral breakthroughs for racial nationalists.

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! 

Ian is on the right, in the red/black Blackburn Rovers (away shirt) – seen here at an England First Christmas party in Blackburn (December 2006), alongside fellow English nationalists Derek Ainsworth (back left – in Burnley shirt) and Ronnie Banks (front left -in Accrington Stanley shirt)

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers