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.

British patriots unite in anti-immigration protests

While Rishi Sunak’s fake ‘Conservative’ government attempts to repeat the traditional Tory con trick, British patriots have been increasingly active in taking to the streets for real anti-immigration campaigns. Yesterday in Cannock, Staffordshire, Patriotic Alternative held a protest march against the use of hotels and council facilities for illegal immigrants.

Members of other groups including the British Democrats, as well as unaffiliated locals, also attended.

In Cannock, following earlier protests across the UK, the protesters emphasised the difference between genuine refugees and economic migrants. Events have been held in very different parts of the country, ranging from Skegness to Liverpool, united in resistance to a policy that has been imposed on them by treacherous politicians and Whitehall bureaucrats.

As an earlier PA campaign stressed: “We were never asked!”

An especially positive aspect of recent campaigns has been the level of activism in Scotland: increasing numbers of Scots are rejecting the fake, ‘woke’ nationalism of Nicola Sturgeon’s declining SNP. One main focus of the current protests is Erskine, west of Glasgow, where the Home Office has dumped 200 young male asylum seekers in a local hotel. These migrants have no legal documentation and have yet to be vetted.

Understandably, locals are angry at having these illegal immigrants dumped in their midst. Especially in a council area where almost 400 indigenous Scots are registered as homeless.

Protests are taking place every Sunday at 12 noon near the Muthu Glasgow River Hotel, where the illegal migrants are being housed. Any H&D readers able to travel to Erskine are encouraged to attend.

UPDATE: H&D subscriber John Ings, who has been flying the flag for racial nationalism in Devon for many years, reports below on his long-distance trip to support the Cannock demonstration.

The Cannock protest on the 11th of March meant an early start, my alarm set for 0430 hours with a couple of pick-ups and a car change to allow for. 

Once there, the police had arranged with the PA organisers a safe rendezvous site and an en masse march to the protest. Which was welcome as it helped against the cold weather.

It was a combined Patriotic Alternative and concerned locals event to raise the awareness of so-called, asylum seekers being housed in hotels. The eye watering cost to the taxpayers is well known of course, yet the finances are but one piece of the problematic jigsaw open borders cause, and I’m pleased that both the PA and local speakers did address the cultural and numerical aspects as well as the financial burden.

It was to our advantage that the protest was so well organised, as the flag waving PA protesters were able to walk into a charged arena to great applause and cheers from the locals and boos from the mentally-ill, unwashed counter-demonstrators. Who, by the way, seemed confused as to why they were there. Calling for things like “trans rights” for some reason. I’m not so sure the hotel-dwellers would be on the same hymn sheet as them.

It also meant that we could present ourselves as decent, concerned (and clean) people. I believe there were a few local hot-heads, but they were limited to shouting through the police line and were not part of the PA group. It does make me wonder if the authorities will learn a lesson from this and in future deliberately engineer physical confrontation in order to get their MSM anti-white propaganda. They certainly have past form for this tactic.

I never attended past National Front marches when at their peak and although this was not on the same scale, it certainly gave an appreciation of how energising they must have been: it did generate an adrenaline charged atmosphere.

Refreshingly, the locals were not cowed by the name calling by our craven low testosterone antagonists, and even cheered when our speakers mentioned white people’s concerns about the invasion. There was even crowd participation when called upon to respond. 

There’s no doubt that the local support and a lively audience combined with the excellent PA speakers raised this protest to a more effective level.

I think we can gauge the measure of success by the cheers of the locals and that the MSM have ignored it. For me, I was pleased the usually apolitical public were excited and motivated by the protest, and this shows that old fashioned street activity is, as it always has been, the way to win. We just have to keep going and keep our optics positive.

It was a trek back home, but fuelled by pie and chips in the pub, well worth the effort.

Well done to Patriotic Alternative.
John Ings

Obituary – Professor Roger Pearson M.Sc. (Econ), Ph.D., (London): 1927 – 2023

All of us at H&D were saddened to hear of the recent death of Dr. Roger Pearson, who was a long-standing subscriber to Heritage and Destiny magazine – in fact he was our eldest subscriber, aged 95, when he died in Washington DC, in January.

Dr. Pearson was a true English gentleman in every sense. He was born in London, in 1927, but spent much of his childhood in Yorkshire. In October 1944, towards the end of the Second World War, he joined the British Army, despite his entitlement to exemption from military service to attend University after completing his Higher School Certificate examinations.

He had volunteered for military service and was inducted into the British Army with a view to obtaining a commission in the (British) Indian Army. After completing basic infantry and corps training with the Queens Royal Regiment in Maidstone, Kent, Roger and his fellow cadets embarked for India to attend the British Indian Army Pre-Officer Training School (Pre-OTS) at Bangalore.

In July 1946 he was commissioned from the British Indian Army OTS Kakul (which today is the Pakistan Military Academy) to serve as a 2nd Lieutenant with Indian troops in Meerut. However, with the approaching Independence of India and Pakistan, he was shortly transferred to service as a 1st Lieutenant with the British Indian Division in the occupation of Japan (Shikoku and Tokyo), from January 1947 to January 1948.

I remember him telling me of how shocked and saddened he was by the behaviour of the American GIs in occupied Japan, and their brutal treatment of the local people, including beatings, theft and numerous rapes of young Japanese women. I asked him about the conduct of our own squaddies over there and he said in general they were very well behaved, and he would have expected nothing less from them. Dr. Pearson always had a very low opinion of American soldiers, and hated their “hazing” tactics, which he described as “very unprofessional”.

His final military service was as a 1st Lieutenant with the British Army in Singapore and Malaya, from January to April 1948.

On leaving the army in 1948, Roger attended university in England. After obtaining a B.Sc.(honours) in economics and sociology, he returned to India in 1952 in a business capacity, first as an assistant accountant in Calcutta (now Kolkata), but eventually as the CEO of several companies in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), primarily in the tea industry – then Pakistan’s second largest export. During this period (1959-65) he served on the Board of the Pakistan Tea Association and was elected President, 1963-4. During that year he was ex officio a member of the Pakistan Tea Board, and the Managing Committee of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

During his service in India and East Pakistan, Roger retained a strong interest in cultural matters. While in Calcutta (1955-1959), he made numerous journalistic contributions to The Statesman and to The Hindustan Standard and a few short broadcast presentations on All-India Radio. He also wrote Eastern Interlude, a Social History of the European Community in Calcutta from 1649-1911, described by the Hindustan Times (India) as “a vivid picture of European social life in India free from prejudices and prepossessions”; by the Hindustan Standard (India) as “objective …brilliant”; by the Indian PEN “Exceptionally well-balanced”; and by The Times (London) as “most diverting and readable…amusing and vivid… it comes to life on every page”. While I was working for him at his DC office, he republished the book (the original was well out of print by then) around 1999 and sold a further couple of hundred copies.

He was invited to serve as a member of the Cultural Advisory Committee of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, but this honour was brief because he soon afterwards left India for Pakistan. Roger Pearson is also proud of having saved the historic and architecturally important South Park Street Cemetery (dating from 1765-1815 when Calcutta was the capital of British India) from demolition. On his offer to set up a restoration fund, the Christian Burial Board, which lacked the funds to restore the decaying monuments, agreed to halt demolition and allow him to establish a fund which, with the eventual support of the Calcutta architect Bernard Matthews, Aurelius David Khan, ICS, and Sir John Woodhead, former and last British Governor of Bengal, succeeded in restoring most of the monuments and having the cemetery declared a National Monument by the Government of India.

Having lost his only brother (a Battle of Britain pilot, killed in North Africa shortly after his 21st birthday), four cousins (three pilots/one aircrew) and two close school friends, all without offspring, to the Second World War, Roger was shocked by the massive dysgenic loss resulting from internecine war in Europe.

He was also saddened by the cultural destruction when he visited war-torn Europe as a student in 1950 and found inspiration at a student summer school in Aachen University in Germany, funded by several European governments with the goal of promoting healing across Europe. Roger instinctively perceived its value and four years later, when employed with a British bank in Calcutta, he founded Northern World, a cultural, non-political Journal of North European Friendship, with the particular goal of promoting reconciliation between the closely related nations of Northern Europe who had so recently been engaged in destroying each other in two “Brothers’ Wars”.

Northern World was favourably received in like-minded circles, including the famed author J.R.R. Tolkien (who also subscribed to AK Chesterton’s Candour journal) and the agrarian environmentalist, Rolf Gardiner, both of whom sent personal letters of congratulation. The success of this venture led Roger, now a rising business executive, to announce the formation of a society – along with Peter Huxley-Blythe, to promote North European friendship, called The Northern League for North European Friendship (more commonly known as The Northern League). Under Roger’s leadership the League remained mainly a cultural and essentially non-political organization. With his business responsibilities mounting rapidly, by 1961 he found it necessary to resign his membership and from all Northern League activities.

Following his withdrawal, the Northern League became more political and published a new journal called The Northlander. British members included Robert Gayre, Alistair Harper, Colin Jordan, and John Tyndall,

By 1965, the situation for old-established British firms operating in India and Pakistan was deteriorating. China had already fought a war with India over the borders of Assam, and India was shortly to invade Pakistan and convert East Pakistan into Bangladesh. Roger could see the tide was turning and sold his own commercial interests and moved to America. On his departure he received a farewell address from the Pakistani employees stating, “Your love, affection and sympathy for your staff are never to be forgotten and specially during the reorganization we have found that you have put yourself out to a great extent in finding the retrenched staff employment, which we feel, can only be equalled by a very few.”

After leaving Asia East, Pearson returned to England for a few months before leaving to the United States, just before the infamous 1965 Immigration Act, which was aimed at stopping British and other Western Europeans from emigrating freely to America. Once, there he spent a year or so in California editing and writing articles and engaging in lecturing before embarking on a ten-month tour of the Caribbean and Southern Africa.

Returning to the United States, he joined the faculty of the Department of Sociology at the University of Southern Mississippi as an Assistant Professor (1968), wrote his Introduction to Anthropology (published in 1974 by what was then the largest Anthropology publishing house in the USA), accepted a position as Associate Professor and Department Head of the Sociology at Queen’s College, Charlotte (today Queens University of Charlotte), before returning to the University of Southern Mississippi (commonly known as ‘Ole Miss’) as Full Professor and Chairman of a new Department of Anthropology offering both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.

At ‘Ole Miss’ Dr. Pearson launched the the Journal of Indo-European Studies and the JIES Monograph series (1972) in collaboration with and under the guidance of the distinguished UCLA archaeologist Marija Gimbutas and University of Texas linguist and mythologist Edgar Polome. He continued to publish JIES via The Institute for the Study of Man until well into his late 80s. It is now edited by Emily Blanchard West (St. Catherine).

In the mid-1960s Dr. Pearson teamed up with Willis Carto (who would later go on to run Liberty Lobby and publish the Spotlight newspaper) for a while and they published a magazine called Western Destiny (1965-66), which was probably the first high quality journal the “American Right” had published since the end of WWII. They stayed friends up until the late 1990s when Willis Carto fell out with Dr. Pearson for not being extreme enough! From 1966 to 1967 under the pen-name “Stephan Langton”, Dr. Pearson published (via Noontide Press) The New Patriot, a magazine devoted to “a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question”.

However, not content with standing still, in 1974, Dr. Pearson accepted a position as Dean of Academic Affairs and Director of Research at Montana Tech of the University of Montana in Butte, Montana, a mile high in the beautiful Rocky Mountains, in the course of which he also became ex-officio Secretary of the Montana Energy and Magnetohydrodynamic Research and Development Institute.

During his time in Montana he joined the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Further adventures now called, and after one year Dr. Pearson again moved, this time to Washington, D.C. (1975) where he founded the Council on American Affairs as the new U.S. chapter. He went on to become Director of the North American Chapter of WACL and publisher and editor of a new journal entitled The Journal of American Affairs (founded 1975), which later changed its name to The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies). In the early years the journal published articles by both scholars, and senators and congressmen. Dr. Pearson continued to publish JSPS via Scott-Townsend until well into his late 80s.

Traveling widely to attend WACL conferences throughout the Far East, South and Central America, and Europe, Dr. Pearson conferenced face to face with several Heads of State, including King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. In 1978 he was elected World Chairman of the World Anti-Communist League in 1978 and hosted the 1979 World Conference of the League in Washington DC. The five-day proceedings were attended by upwards of a thousand WACL members and guests from free countries around the globe (including Lady Jane Birdwood from the UK). The Opening Ceremony was conducted with the aid of The U.S. Joint Armed Services Honour Guard and the Marine Corps Band and addressed by two U.S. Senators!

While Pravda in Moscow was ready to condemn the Conference out of hand, the left-wing Washington Post (WP), which had had a reporter at the Conference, totally ignored it for some thirty days while preparing a virtually full-page attack on both the WACL and its president, Dr. Pearson. Writing fancifully about “fascists” and South American “death squads”, the author of the Post article also levelled charges against Dr. Pearson’s alleged efforts to enrol “extremists” into WACL – surely not!

Indeed, it is a fact that, unlike the delegates from Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Central and Southern America, Pearson found the WACL European and Asian chapters replete with delegates who were almost soft on Communism (not including Lady Birdwood of course!). One Indian delegate constantly attacked “neo-colonialism”, but seemed never to mention the very real Communist threat to freedom in the 1960s and ’70s.

Dr. Pearson consequently promoted the recruitment of more genuine anti-Communists, such as the Italian Social Movement (MSI), at that time the fourth largest political party in Italy, whose successors – the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) won Italy’s parliamentary elections in September 2022: their leader Giorgia Meloni became her country’s first female prime minister. I’m sure that brought a smile to his face!

After the WACL Dr. Pearson continued to work with the American Security Council, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Journal of International Relations. But efforts by the liberal-left to frustrate his work continued. His scientific comprehension of Darwinian reality, and the importance of genetic, cultural, and environmental concerns for the survival of humanity, made him a target for those who care only about the present generation, and not those numberless generations hopefully still to come. His sociological and anthropological training meant that he never stressed the biological at the expense of the environmental, because biological organisms are dependent on the ecosphere – and also on a culture that supports both the biological and the environmental heritage. This the liberal-left hated, and they carried on a campaign against him and his work well into the 2000s.

Concerned about the future of the human race, Dr. Pearson became a Member of the British Eugenics Society, now known as the Galton Institute, as early as 1963, and was elected a Fellow in 1977. In 1979 he also assumed publication of Professor Robert Gayre’s Mankind Quarterly, which the latter had founded in 1960 with the aid of distinguished scholars such as Henry Vallois, S.D. Porteus, and Sir Charles B. Darwin. As the earlier generation of contributors passed on, he was able to recruit distinguished scholars to replace them, such as Joseph Campbell, Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck and William Shockley. Dr. Pearson continued to publish MQ via Scott-Townsend until well into his late 80s, and around 2010 passed it over to Prof. Richard Lynn, who publishes it via the Ulster Institute for Social Research.

In 1990 Pearson founded the bi-monthly Conservative Review, an American version of Right NOW!, and published it via the Council for Social and Economic Studies. The magazine lasted almost seven years, but folded in 1997, due to lack of support from the “right-wing” of the GOP.

Not forgetting the importance of Universities to the rising generation, and concerned by the premeditated campus disruptions during the 1960s and 70s, Dr. Pearson joined the University Professors for Academic Order (UPAO), and served as its President 1980-84. Combining his credentials in the social sciences with his practical experience in the commercial world, his bank training in accounting, and his professional status as a former Fellow of the British Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators and member of the British Institute of Directors, he also served as a Trustee of the Benjamin Franklin University in Washington D.C. for a number of years before that respected institution, noted for the quality of its alumni, was absorbed into Georgetown University.

In 1984 Pearson received a Certificate of Appreciation signed by General Daniel O. Graham, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency under President Reagan, and later of High Frontier, expressing “grateful appreciation for the important work you have done to prepare the way for a more secure world.” Also, a 1985 written accolade from the US Department of Education for “outstanding service to U.S. Education, and Education Reform Efforts”. But perhaps the most significant tribute, and one that annoyed Pearson’s critics most strongly, was a signed letter from President Ronald Reagan commending Pearson for “promoting and upholding those ideals and principles that we value at home and abroad …bringing to a wide audience the work of leading scholars who are supportive of a free enterprise economy, a firm and consistent foreign policy and a strong national defence.”
Later an embarrassed White House official asked Dr. Pearson not to use the letter for publicity purposes, after they had come under attack from the Washington Post!

Dr. Pearson wrote over a dozen books including:

Eastern Interlude. Thacker Spink, Calcutta; Luzac and Co., London (1953) – republished by Scott-Townsend 1999.

Eugenics and Race. London: Clair Press; Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1958).

Blood Groups and Race. 2nd ed. London: Clair Press; Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1966).

Race & Civilisation. 2nd Ed. London: Clair Press; Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1966).

Early Civilizations of the Nordic Peoples. London: Northern World (1958); Los Angeles: Noontide Press (1965).

Introduction to Anthropology: An Ecological/Evolutionary Approach. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston (1974)

Sino-Soviet Intervention in Africa. Council on American Affairs (1977)

Korea in the World Today. Washington, D.C.: Council on American Affairs (1978)

Ecology and Evolution. Washington, D.C.: Mankind Quarterly Monograph (1981)

Essays in Medical Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers (1981)

Anthropological Glossary. Marla at, FL: Krieger Publishing (1985)

Evolution, Creative Intelligence, and Intergroup Competition. Cliveden Press (1986)

William Shockley: Shockley on Eugenics and Race: The Application of Science to the Solution of Human Problems. Preface by Arthur Jensen. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers (1992).

Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe. Introduction by Hans Eysenck.[47] Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington, D.C., 1991. (2nd. Ed. 1994).

Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers (1991) [2nd ed. 1998].

I first met Dr. Pearson in 1996 a year or so after I had moved from Devon in England to live the States. A mutual friend Carl Knittle, who was working for him at his down-town DC office at the time introduced us. Carl had just handed in his notice, and they were looking for his replacement, which turned out to be me!

I ended up working there for over six years, and only left when the US Government issued me with a ten-year exclusion order towards the end of 2002, so I had no choice but to leave and return to dear old Blighty.

From his DC office – which was only six or seven blocks from the White House – and only one block away from a black (now Hispanic) ghetto! – Dr. Pearson edited and published three journals, the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (JSPS), the Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) and his pride and joy the Mankind Quarterly (MQ). He also published numerous books and monographs, many sold through his mail order (and later online) book shop – Scott Townsend Books.

Both Dr. Pearson and his wife Marion – who died around ten years before him – were very kind to me. In fact, if it had not been for them, I don’t think I would have survived so long Stateside. They had four children, two boys and two girls. The girls both married Europeans (a Frenchman and a German) and they were very proud to have a true pan-European family. Their eldest son Edwin was born (in India) on exactly the same day as me (in Worcester) on October 3rd, 1960, which they both found amusing. Sadly, Edwin died very young in his forties.

During those six years working at his office at 1133 on 13th Street, NW, I met so many interesting people, including to name but a few Dr. Philippe Rushton, Prof. Glayde Whitney, Attorney Sam Dickson, Paul Fromm, and the men with the deep pockets – Harry Weyher and Bill Regnery.

American Renaissance, which is run by Jared Taylor, used to hold their annual conference near to their office in Northern Virginia, not too far away from down-town Washington DC, so many conference attendees use to pop into the our office to say hello, and sometimes taking Dr. Pearson out for lunch, en route to the conference. It was always nice to meet new and old friends.

Two other “doctors” from time to time used to visit the office, when passing through DC – Dr. William L. Pierce and Dr. Edward R. Fields – they would normally go out with Dr. Pearson for either lunch or dinner depending on the time of the visit. I later found out that during Dr. Pierce’s last visit the FBI had staked out the building! They tailed them both to a local restaurant, sat inside at a table close to theirs while they ate and talked, then tailed them back to the office. It seems that every time Dr. Pierce left the National Alliance compound in West Virginia, to go out of town, the Feds went with him! Anyway, it was good to see American taxes were put to good use!

And then there was “9-11”. On September 11th 2001, I got into the office on time, which was a couple of minutes before 9am and started to drink my coffee (I would do the typically American thing of eating my bagel while walking to work!). Up until then – as they say – it was just a normal day at the office!

Dr. Pearson was already in his office (which was the room next door to mine) hard at work. He normally got there before me, around 8.45am most mornings. However, he did not have very far to travel – as he lived in an apartment (flat) just above the office, on the 4th or 5th floor (I think). We said our usual pleasantries, and I then got on with going through the mail from the previous day (I did not normally work on a Monday) and from the weekend.

Looking back on it, around the time I was getting my breakfast, around 8.46am, New York was turning into a scene of devastation after the first of the two planes smashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. And around the time I was sitting down at my desk and starting to open the mail, around 9.03am the second plane was smashing into the South Tower.

Both 110 storey towers collapsed within an hour and forty-two minutes, leading to the collapse of the other World Trade Center structures including the 7 World Trade Center, and significantly damaging all the surrounding buildings.

Of course, Dr. Pearson and I were oblivious to all this, as we did not have a radio or TV on in either office, and it was just before the days of smart phones.

The first we knew that something was wrong, was when Dr. Pearson’s wife Marion rang him from their upstairs flat, where I guess she was watching the events unfold on TV. He told me what she had told him, but to honest it did not really sink in there and then what was going on. So, we just carried on working as normal.

I guess five minutes later, just before 9.20am we got another phone call which I answered this time. It was BNP leader Nick Griffin! He told us basically what Mrs. Pearson had just told us, that two hijacked planes had crashed into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center, but then added that two more planes were now on their way to DC to blow up the White House and Capital Buildings, and that we needed to get out quickly!

Of course, even we wanted to get out – which we didn’t – where were we meant to get out to? However, Nick meant well, and I appreciate him warning us anyway, even though there was nothing we could do about it. I thanked him and told him we would not be moving from the building at this time, but if he could ring back with any updates, that would be very useful.

I talked over the situation with Dr. Pearson, and he said he did not think the planes would even reach DC, and even if they did, their targets were so far away from us that we would “probably be ok”! So, we sat back down at our desks and carried on working.

However, we had only been back at our desks for a couple of minutes, when we heard a hell of a commotion going on outside our building. At 9:37am, the third of the hijacked planes crashed into the west side of the Pentagon (the headquarters of the American military, as well as a large underground shopping mall), which was just over the Potomac River in NW Arlington, Virginia, causing a partial collapse of the building’s west side.

To give you an idea of distance, The Pentagon is about three and miles south east of our office, maybe a ten-minute drive away. It’s just south of Arlington National Cemetery, and just north of Alexandria.

I can remember hearing an explosion, and then the noise of hundreds of other office workers, and locals outside our office on the streets. I said to Dr. Pearson that I was going outside to see what the heck was happening, because we had no windows in the office so I could not peer out. Once outside I could see all the smoke in the distance, and word got round that the Pentagon had been hit.

I can’t remember there being a panic, but a lot of my fellow DC workers were very concerned as word had got around that the 4th plane was on its way to DC!

However, the 4th plane – United 93 – never reached DC. And US authorities even to this day, don’t know for sure if the target was to have been the White House or the Capitol.

The story put about by President Bush’s spin-doctors that the passengers aboard United 93 decided to act once they realized all was lost – i.e. storm the flight deck, attack the terrorists and bring the plane down before it reached Washington DC – sadly did not happen. But why would it have done, it never happened on the other three hijacked flights, and they had many more passengers.

What did really happen, was that Bush ordered United 93 to be shot down before it got anywhere near DC. This flight was the only plane not to hit its intended target, instead after being shot down it crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, about 170 miles from DC at 10:03 am.

Once the news spread around DC that plane number four had crashed and that there were probably no more hijacked planes up in the skies, most of the workers either returned to their offices – as I did – or they left and started to make their way back home.

I asked Dr. Pearson what we should do, and he said, “just carry on working Mark”! Which is what I did until around noon when I went for an early lunch. All public transport in DC was in the process of being stopped, but most of the bars and restaurants seemed to be open, with customers glued to the TVs. I found a Subway close by and got a meal and a soda (pop to you Brits!) and tried to check my cell phone, only to find it not working. The internet had also gone down, but landlines were still working.

I made my way back to the office, where Dr. Pearson was still working. He informed me he was then going up upstairs to his flat for his lunch. So, I just went back to work. Strange when you look back on it.

My girlfriend of the time (Jackie) was calling the office every half an hour or so, asking when I was going to get out of DC and come home. I told her the same thing each time: as soon as I can.

Dr. Pearson came back down to the office around 2pm I guess, and told me to pack up for the day, since it would take me ages to get home as there was no public transport. Even most of the ‘enriched’ taxi drivers had gone home by then. So, I called Jackie back from the office landline and said I was going to start to make my way back to Falls Church, but be prepared for a long wait as it may take a while!

A full report of the events from “9-11” can be found on the H&D website – click here for details.

There are so many incredible stories I could tell you about Dr. Roger Pearson and the goings on at the office and around DC, including our trips to the Martin Luther King Jr. Post Office, which used to run out of stamps!; our trip with Zach (who use to work part time at the office himself in the early days) to Burger King, where Dr. P. ordered off the cuff not from the set menu, which completely baffled the young black counter assistant!; the day Dr. Pearson telephoned Zach’s home and his brother Corey answered the phone and thought it was, and I quote “the King of England calling”! The day Dr. P. went for a lunch time drink with Zach and I in a bar near McPherson Square, and a lefty looking bloke with very long hair stood by us waiting to be served. Zach said to Dr. P. “what do you make of him”, to which Dr. P. replied “he’s probably a homosexual”! The day after Princess Diana died (I was at work even though it was a Sunday): Dr. P. and I went out for lunch near the White House and Yanks were coming up to us in the restaurant giving us their condolences, as if we knew her!

Of course, we had our ups and downs, but overall, I had six very enjoyable years working for Dr. Pearson, where I learnt not only how to run an efficient office (a well-oiled machine – you should see the H&D office now!), but so much more about race, eugenics, anthropology, history and American politics.

The last time I spoke to him was shortly before Christmas. I think my phone call had woken him up from an afternoon nap, and it took a couple of minutes for him to realise who I was. But after that he was fine, and we had a good old natter, chatting about old times in DC and the political situation in the UK. He was still very sharp even at 95.

I will sorely miss Dr. Roger Pearson, he was one of a kind. And if there is a Valhalla, he will surely have a place there.

From chapter 8 of Fagrskinna, one of the kings’ sagas, written around 1220. The composition is by an anonymous author from the 10th century and is referred to as Eiríksmál, and describes Eric Bloodaxe and five other kings arriving in Valhalla after their death. The poem begins with comments by Odin (as Old Norse Óðinn):

“What kind of a dream is it,” said Óðinn,
“in which just before daybreak,
I thought I cleared Valhǫll,
for coming of slain men?
I waked the Einherjar,
bade valkyries rise up,
to strew the bench,
and scour the beakers,

Wine to carry,
as for a king’s coming,
here to me I expect
heroes’ coming from the world,
certain great ones,
so glad is my heart.”

There will also be an obituary in a future issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine.

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 18^th 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

H&D Issue 113 out now

The new issue (#113) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 32-page, March-April 2023 issue, has as its lead:

“Should nationalists follow and/or support professional sports teams” – asks mega sports fan Hugh Perry

Issue 113

March – April 2023

Contents include:

• Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
• Nationalism, the movement and the Royal Family by Mike Whitby; + “Put not your trust in princes”, a reply by Tony Paulsen
• Why the official climate change narrative is both misleading and alarmist – by Alec Suchi
• Old Poets Corner – with poems submitted by Tess Neil Culnane (A Mother’s Grief) and Harry Craig (For The Fallen – by Laurence Binyon)
• Fidel Castro: Fascist, Communist or Opportunist?  – by Zoltanous
• TV Review – Gangs of London – Series 2 – reviewed by Peter Rushton
• Movie Review: Medieval – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
• Book Review – The Tyranny of Human Rights: From Jacobinism to the United Nations – by Dr. Kerry Bolton – Part 1 of a review by Ian Freeman
• Should nationalists follow and/or support professional sports teams? – by Hugh Perry – with a reply from Mark Cotterill
• Book Review – National Socialism Vanguard of the Future: Selected writings of Colin Jordan – Third edition – by Colin Jordan – reviewed by Craig Dale
• 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).

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.

Robert Faurisson on Auschwitz: the facts and the legend

The great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson was born in Shepperton, West London, 94 years ago today. Immediately after returning to his home in Vichy from a conference organised by H&D in that same town of Shepperton, the Professor died aged 89 on 21st October 2018.

In January 1995, just before the much-heralded 50th anniversary of the capture of the camp by Soviet forces – which is now the basis for ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ in many countries – Professor Faurisson published an essay summarising his revisionist research separating facts from legend concerning Auschwitz.

This essay can now be found at The Faurisson Archive, a comprehensive online resource compiling his essays on revisionism and other topics. The late Professor’s “unofficial blog”, containing an extensive archive – the entirety of his collected works in nine volumes and numerous translations in English, German and Italian – was destroyed by Google at the behest, of course, of the usual suspects last October on the fourth anniversary of Faurisson’s death, but has been rebuilt and enhanced by the Professor’s longtime translator and assistant.

As we reported a few days ago, the Archive also now includes an important rediscovery: an audio recording of a speech delivered by Professor Faurisson in New York in 1980, to a group of revisionists convened by Fritz Berg. Click here to read about this rediscovery and its importance to revisionist historiography.

And now for ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’, the Archive has published a new English translation of an important essay by Robert Faurisson: see the Holocaust Day update at the Real History Blog.

Work continues on re-editing and uploading material to the Faurisson Archive. And what Robert Faurisson termed the great intellectual adventure of revisionism also continues. Robert Faurisson would have been 94 years old today, but he remains ever young, ever relevant, ever at the forefront of the challenge to mystification and outright lies. Happy Birthday Robert!

The spy exposed in his own words

Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez was exposed this week as a spy operating inside the Spanish nationalist movement and seeking to subvert international anti-Zionist networks.

Now further information has come to light, drawn from this infiltrator’s own former Twitter account.

Armando first began to infiltrate radical nationalist circles at the end of 2020 and later became co-leader of a militant national-socialist group, Bastión Frontal.

As explained in a detailed investigation earlier this week, his past record involved working for a staunchly pro-Zionist and anti-Nazi academic institute. He disguised this past record from his new comrades.

Now the extent of Armando’s personal commitment to the Zionist cause can be revealed in his own words.

During May-June 2017 – when retweeting and commenting on tweets from an official Israeli government account, Armando publicly declared his commitment to the hardline Zionist position of “reuniting Jerusalem” as the Jewish capital.

On 27th May 2017 after a hardline pro-Zionist resolution by the Czech Parliament had condemned UNESCO for its criticism of Israel and endorsed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Armando wrote that the Czechs had set a “great example” and said to the Israeli government account: “Let’s hope that many others follow this example at once.”

Ten days later, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the notorious Israeli aggression known as the ‘Six Day War’, which resulted in the Zionist seizure of vast swathes of territory from its Arab neighbours, Armando tweeted: “In my opinion, the study of the Six-Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem can help us understand many things: brilliant!”

Though most of his old Twitter account is devoted to his cycling hobby, the political tweets/retweets reflect a consistently militant pro-Zionist and “anti-Nazi” stance – curious in man who three years later was to reinvent himself as a leading national-socialist and ‘radical’ anti-Zionist pursuing links with Iran.

Armando never at any stage explained this curious ideological journey, and until now none of his new comrades had checked up on his record.

While there can be many reasons (including irony) for retweeting something you disagree with, it is obvious when seen in the context of his own words above, and his own record already described in detail in the earlier article, that Armando Rodríguez Pérez was retweeting in celebration of anti-nazism and Zionism.

For example, in recent months he has been an outspoken Anglophobe and enemy of all things American, yet on the 2017 anniversary of the Anglo-American D-Day landings in Normandy (6th June 1944) Armando tweeted in celebration of this decisive blow against the Third Reich.

He also retweeted anti-Nazi and pro-Zionist resolutions such as the one below from the European Parliament.

And in response to terrorist attacks in Egypt and Barcelona, the people Armando set out to retweet were for some reason the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Israel’s extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Taken in isolation any one of these might be seen as a one-off, provoked by Islamist terrorism. But taken together (and bearing in mind his own extreme Zionist sentiments expressed above) we can perceive Armando Rodríguez Pérez as a committed anti-nazi and supporter of Israel who set out to infiltrate national socialist and anti-Zionist groups.

In doing so he disguised his true allegiances and past record from his own client, Isabel Peralta, and betrayed her when she was visiting Germany during 2022.

The spy has now been exposed, and our movement will emerge stronger from this unfortunate experience.

Anti-Fascist Spy Exposed

A leading figure in several radical nationalist, national socialist and anti-Zionist groups in Spain can today be revealed as an undercover ‘anti-fascist’ agent. This exposé is also published at the Real History Blog and in German, in Spanish, in French, and in Italian.

Beginning in late 2020 and with increasing prominence since late 2021, Armando Rodríguez Pérez has led a double life.

One face of Armando Rodríguez Pérez is as a lawyer with an academic specialism in human rights, organising conferences with a strongly ‘anti-fascist’ theme, and sharing the Madrid office of a legal firm offering advice to German and English speaking clients in Spain.

The other face of Armando Rodríguez Pérez is as a radical leader of the ‘far right’, not only representing some of Spain’s most noted national socialists, but also taking an active role in leading their organisations, raising troubling questions about the extent to which he and his controllers may have crossed the line between infiltrator and agent provocateur.

During November-December 2022 Armando Rodríguez Pérez (recently using the online identity ‘Armando Renacer’ and previously ‘Armando Bastión’):
(1) became “political action secretary” for a new movement that represents the ‘National Bolshevik’ faction of Spain’s ‘far right’;
(2) infiltrated the circle of a British political activist and travelled to her home in Germany, where he met with several leading German national socialist activists;
(3) volunteered to act as liaison between a fugitive political dissident and the Iranian Government.

For more than a year until the group’s dissolution in the autumn of 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez was co-leader of a national socialist youth group, Bastión Frontal, and organised international connections with similar groups in France, Italy, Serbia, Poland and elsewhere.

And until today he was still acting as lawyer for the activist who attracted international media attention to Bastión Frontal, the 20-year-old student Isabel Peralta.

Yet Armando Rodríguez Pérez is not what he seems.

INFILTRATING THE ‘FAR RIGHT’

During the summer of 2020 – in the early months of the pandemic – Spain’s secret police (the CGI, roughly equivalent to the old British Special Branch, or what is now SO15) began to monitor the activities of a new national socialist youth group, Bastión Frontal, whose activities involved both opposing illegal immigration (especially immigrant street gangs) and drawing attention to the economic plight of many working-class Spaniards suffering under pandemic restrictions.

An 18-year-old history student at Complutense University of Madrid, Isabel Peralta, was first observed by the secret police at a Bastión Frontal activity in September 2020. She had previously been active in other Falangist groups but had become disillusioned by some of their reactionary and corrupt leaders. Isabel attracted international attention on 13th February 2021 when she gave a speech in tribute to the heroic anti-communist volunteers of the Blue Division (División Azul), who fought on the Eastern Front after 1941 against Stalin’s Red Army.

At the end of 2020, a 30-year-old lawyer named Armando Rodríguez Pérez suddenly appeared in ‘far right’ circles. He first turned up among football ultras in the tough Madrid district of San Blas-Canillejas, then gave a speech about the Blue Division’s war record at a meeting of national socialists with an interest in military history. He had no known past political activity, or indeed even the remotest connection to any form of nationalist movement. No one knew anything about him and no one checked up on him. For reasons that now seem mystifying, Armando was accepted as a comrade by various radical factions, each perhaps assuming that someone else had vouched for him.

Armando enhanced his credibility in such circles by latching onto Bastión Frontal after it had become the most visible face of Spanish radical nationalism, largely thanks to its co-leader Isabel Peralta.

Within a very short time he had emerged as one of the leaders of this national socialist youth group, partly because he was a few years older, and partly because he offered them free legal advice and even represented them in court without charge.

Soon he was calling himself ‘Armando Bastión’ and making regular speeches at the group’s meetings, also acting as moderator for their online Telegram forum. After Isabel Peralta moved to Germany for a few months during late 2021 and early 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez established himself as effectively the leader of Bastión Frontal, especially after co-leader Rodrigo Miguélez was imprisoned. Armando represented both Rodrigo and Isabel in several criminal and civil cases.

During the autumn of 2022 Bastión Frontal collapsed, but Armando Rodríguez Pérez is continuing to represent Isabel in a long-running criminal case, where prosecutors are trying to jail her for a speech made at an anti-immigration rally outside the Moroccan Embassy in May 2021. He is also representing her in a continuing civil action that she has brought against the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post.

Yet in both of these cases (and earlier legal problems relating to Bastión Frontal activists) Armando Rodríguez Pérez had a conflict of interest that made it grossly improper for him to act on behalf of such clients. While they are militant nationalists, national socialists and anti-Zionists, Armando Rodríguez Pérez has a long background (which he disguised from his new clients and ‘comrades’) working for an explicitly anti-fascist and anti-nazi academic foundation with close connections to Israel and international Jewish organisations.

ARMANDO AND THE BERG INSTITUTE

Armando Rodríguez Pérez arrived suddenly in nationalist / national-socialist circles after a background of several years working with an important academic organisation that specialises in ‘Holocaust’ studies and other ‘anti-fascist’ themes, the Madrid-based Berg Institute (Instituto Berg).

He studied for a year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His biography on the Spanish version of his former law firm’s website was later edited to remove reference to his time in Jerusalem, but an earlier English-language draft of the same page still includes this reference.

Armando’s master’s degree in “International Relations, International Law and Conflict Resolution” was undertaken jointly with Alfonso X el Sabio University, Madrid; the UN’s ‘University for Peace’; and the Berg Institute.

He went on to work as part of the Berg Institute’s ‘academic coordination team’ and took part in the Institute’s joint training programmes with the Colombian Army and security forces.

In other words Armando Rodríguez Pérez was not simply studying in Israel, or casually associated with the Berg Institute: he was actually an organiser and coordinator for several of their projects. This is especially disturbing when one looks in more detail at the content of the conferences that he organised.

Similar connections with the Berg Institute were shared with both of the close friends with whom in 2015 Armando Rodríguez Pérez set up a law firm in Madrid called GABEIRO – José Feliciano Beceiro Armada and Jesús Gavilán Hormigo. Gavilán studied in Jerusalem during 2014 alongside Armando, and worked for the Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón, named in honour of Spain’s most infamously left-wing, ‘anti-fascist’ judge. While Beceiro preceded Armando as organiser of the Berg Institute’s international conference.

A fourth lawyer who was part of this short-lived GABEIRO firm (Álvaro Domec López) was brought into Isabel Peralta’s criminal case by Armando in January 2022 – a fact that was completely unknown to Isabel herself until it was revealed in court documents.

It is necessary to look more closely at this Berg Institute, for which Armando Rodríguez Pérez acted as a coordinator / organiser before his sudden ‘conversion’ to the radical nationalist / national socialist cause.

There are many Jews in the world, and of course it would be ridiculous to assume that a lawyer is a Jewish agent if he simply had a passing connection with a Jewish client.

Armando’s connection is far more serious, especially when viewed alongside work with the police and military, and international work undertaken with the backing of this particular anti-fascist organisation.

Readers should bear in mind that Armando has never at any stage confided in his new comrades, in order to explain his political conversion. His past as the organiser of anti-fascist conferences was completely secret until revealed during this investigation.

ARMANDO THE ANTI-NAZI CONFERENCE ORGANISER

In 2014 and 2015, Armando Rodríguez Pérez was the organiser of two international conferences for the Berg Institute. These were very high-level events lasting in each case for a fortnight, starting in Madrid and moving on to several other European cities. The academic directors of the conference were the two co-directors of the Berg Institute, one of whom was Armando’s academic supervisor, Prof. Joaquin González Ibáñez.

These conferences were imbued with the ‘anti-nazi’ and anti-fascist ethos of the Berg Institute. On 23rd June 2014, the second day of the conference included a homage to an exhibition at the Museo Reina Sofía dedicated to the Picasso painting Guernica, the Spanish town bombed by the Condor Legion (a German force supporting General Franco’s Nationalists) in April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, which has attained mythic, iconic status for anti-fascists.

A co-director of the Berg Institute gave a lecture to the conference titled ‘Colonialism, World Wars and the Holocaust’, then on 1st July (after the conference participants had visited the European Court of Human Rights), Armando organised a visit to the concentration camp at Natzweiler-Struthof in Alsace. This was the only such camp established by the German authorities on French soil, and is often described as a ‘death camp’. Controversially, there is claimed to have been a homicidal gas chamber at the camp, but only a primitive one supposedly used for occasional experimental killings, not the mass killings alleged at Auschwitz and other camps in Eastern Europe.

The late revisionist scholar Prof. Robert Faurisson analysed this Natzweiler-Struthof ‘gas chamber’ story in detail. Faurisson discovered that even the scientific expert sent by French prosecutors to examine Struthof (Prof. René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacology Faculty in Paris) concluded in December 1945 that there was no trace of hydrocyanic acid (i.e. the active ingredient in the alleged mass murder weapon ‘Zyklon B’, actually an insecticide) in Struthof’s alleged ‘gas chamber’. Neither did the corpses of allegedly ‘gassed’ victims that Fabre inspected in a Strasbourg morgue show any trace of this poison. Natzweiler-Struthof is thus unique among the alleged ‘death camps’ in having been inspected – not by a ‘revisionist’ but by an expert witness working for the new French government – and found not to have been used in the manner now described by the ‘Holocaust’ industry.

But none of this is mentioned by the Berg Institute, for whom the visit organised by Armando was simply a genuflection at a ‘Holocaust’ site. As with the trip to the Guernica exhibition in Madrid, this was an act of quasi-religious homage to the ‘victims of nazism’. As we shall see, the entire outlook of the Berg Institute is based on Holocaustian foundations.

The day after this act of homage at the ‘death camp’, the conference discussed the Nuremberg trials, which again are fundamental to the version of ‘international human rights law’ promoted by the Berg Institute.

A year later, in June-July 2015, Armando organised a second Berg Institute conference along very similar lines, again incorporating a visit to the Natzweiler-Struthof ‘death camp’. This time there was also a lecture by the academic lawyer Javier Chinchón from Madrid’s Complutense University, on the theme of historical memory and the state’s responsibility to ‘victims’. Chinchón argued that Spain had failed sufficiently to condemn the crimes of the Franco era: he has been one of the main academic lobbyists pushing for a strict ‘democratic memory law’ of the type recently adopted.

Armando’s present client Isabel Peralta has campaigned on the other side of this argument – but at no point has Armando admitted to her that he had himself been the organiser of academic conferences that actively promoted such a law; conferences that were thoroughly imbued with an ‘anti-fascist’ ethos seeking to ground the entire approach to ‘human rights’ in a politically-slanted approach to the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.

In 2013 an earlier Berg Institute conference – run along similar lines to the two organised by Armando himself during 2014-2015 – was organised by Armando’s partner in the GABEIRO firm, José Feliciano Beceiro Armada. This included a reception hosted by the Colombian Ambassador. (Beceiro and Armando were both involved in the Berg Institute’s training sessions for the Colombian Army and Security Forces.)

Yet again, this conference concluded with a solemn pilgrimage to the ‘death camp’ at Natzweiler-Struthof.

Armando’s colleagues at the Berg Institute have continued to organise these conferences every year, when not disrupted by the pandemic. In 2019 the conference was held in Israel, in coordination with the Berg Institute’s longstanding academic partner, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It included visits to the ancient historic icon of Masada, where, allegedly, Jewish soldiers killed themselves in 74 AD rather than surrender to Roman forces that had besieged the fortress; to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset; and of course a pilgrimage to the Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem.

In January 2022 a similar international conference organised by the Berg Institute included a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.

THE BERG INSTITUTE – ROOTED IN ‘HOLOCAUST’ STUDIES AND ANTI-NAZISM

The Berg Institute – for which Armando Rodríguez Pérez has worked and which was the co-organiser of his academic training – specialises in publishing the work of leading Jews in relation to the ‘Holocaust’, war crimes trials, and anti-Nazi activities.

Formally incorporated in 2009 as the Fundación Berg Oceana Aufklarung, its founder and co-director is Joaquín Gonzáles Ibáñez, a professor of international law and international relations at both the long-established Complutense University, Madrid, and at the much newer private university Alfonso X.

Interviewed in January 2019, Prof. Gonzáles explained that the Institute was partly inspired by his political hero Nelson Mandela, and stressed that its entire outlook on “human rights” was rooted in anti-fascism and anti-nazism:
“We always refer to the historic perspective, that probably the three worst legacies in the last centuries, the darkest hours, the darkest chapters, the most infamous moments in the last two centuries in world history were precisely created by Europeans. What I mean are the legacy of colonialism and fascism, all of them are European creations. So, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler and other historical characters are as European as van Gogh, Goya or Picasso. And in this program, we start with Auschwitz and we go to the Modern Art Reina Sofía Museum to encounter the Guernica from Picasso. And we have this tool, which is a legal approach, but also historical, political…”

Prof. Gonzáles went on to describe how his Berg Institute had created “the most important human rights library in the Spanish language.” This began in 2010 with Primo Levi’s Auschwitz Trilogy, which was “the cradle of the project, the first book of the collection, number zero, we were lucky to have the best departure point. …Going to Auschwitz hand in hand with Primo Levi, it shows you not just the past, but what are your main responsibilities towards planet earth.”

At the time of this interview in 2019, the Institute had just published Totalmente Extraoficial, the memoirs of Raphael Lemkin, first published in English in 2013 as Totally Unofficial. Most famous as the man who coined the term ‘genocide’, Lemkin was a Polish Jewish lawyer who moved to the USA and became a special adviser to the US War Department. His 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe is regarded as a “foundational text in Holocaust studies”, and Lemkin went on to be the senior adviser to Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel to the Nuremberg trials.

The Spanish edition had 70 extra pages drawn from Lemkin’s archive and a prologue by the Spanish writer Antonio Muñoz Molina, a winner of the Jerusalem Prize who now resides in New York. Muñoz also wrote an introduction to the Berg Institute’s 2019 Spanish edition of the memoirs of Europe’s most famous militant “nazi-hunters”, Serge and Beate Klarsfeld (first published in French in 2015 and in English in 2018 as Hunting the Truth: Memoirs of Beate and Serge Klarsfeld). The video below shows an event jointly organised by the Berg Institute and a Jewish cultural centre in Madrid – Centro Sefarad Israel – paying tribute to the Klarsfelds.

It’s now known that the Klarsfelds worked on a regular basis with the communist East German secret police – the Stasi – to demonise Western politicians as “nazis” and stage “anti-nazi” propaganda stunts. They organised many secret operations against national socialist veterans and “neo-nazis” and in 1974 were convicted and given two-month jail sentences (later suspended) for the attempted kidnapping of former SS intelligence officer Kurt Lischka.

The Klarsfelds’ most famous achievements include tracking down former Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie and having him deported from Bolivia to France for trial, and campaigning for the prosecution of retired French police chief Maurice Papon. They also tracked down René Bousquet, a former civil servant in the French government of Philippe Pétain in Vichy. Bousquet was murdered before he could stand trial.

On several occasions the Klarsfelds tried to track down Alois Brunner, a former Third Reich official who lived in Damascus after the war: Beate Klarsfeld even undertook an undercover mission to Syria, where she was briefly jailed.

Since the late 1970s one of the Klarsfelds’ main targets was the French revisionist scholar Prof. Robert Faurisson. They campaigned for his prosecution, testified at his trials, and organised anti-revisionist propaganda in many countries. They have also been active in campaigns against many different varieties of modern-day nationalist politicians, even those such as Marine Le Pen who painstakingly distance themselves from racialism, historical revisionism and ‘anti-semitism’.

The Klarsfelds are highlighted by Berg Institute founder Gonzáles as among his main inspirations, as is Fritz Bauer, the German Jewish judge who was responsible for alerting Israel’s intelligence service Mossad to the whereabouts of Adolf Eichmann, allowing them to begin the operation that ended in his kidnapping from Buenos Aires and subsequent trial and execution. Bauer also led the prosecution at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial that began in 1963, and was the most important ‘Holocaust’-related trial after that of Nuremberg. The Berg Institute worked with the Fritz Bauer Institute to create a “Human Rights Film Award” in joint honour of Fritz Bauer and Raphael Lemkin.

Prof. Gonzáles has said that, while building the Institute, he “personally dreamt of my heroes, Lemkin, Primo Levi, of course, Klarsfeld and finally, Fritz Bauer. …Also, we are working in something special about the Civil War in Spain and the post-civil war and the trauma and the punitive and infamous legacy of Franco´s dictatorship and the luck of a democratic response during the last 40 years of Spanish democracy. We didn’t have in Spain any agenda designed when the Spanish transition unfolded on how to address the human rights violations and crimes of Franco’s dictatorship from 1939 to 1975. Probably few people thought about this necessary scenario.”

In other words, Prof. Gonzáles addresses the failure to institutionalise “anti-fascism” in post-Franco Spain. This deficiency was remedied in 2022 with the “democratic memory law” which demonises Spanish nationalism and enshrines communists and anti-fascists as heroes, and by an accompanying “anti-semitism” law that effectively criminalises criticism of Judaism and many forms of Holocaust revisionism.

Other books published by the Berg Institute include:
– The Spanish edition of Deborah Lipstadt’s El juicio de Eichmann (2019): first published in English in 2011 as The Eichmann Trial.
– The Spanish edition of the memoirs of Richard Sonnenfeldt, a German-Jewish intelligence officer who was personal interpreter to Gen. William Donovan, head of the OSS (precursor to the CIA), and chief interpreter to the US prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials; these memoirs were published in Spanish by the Instituto Berg in 2018 as Testigo en Núremberg; first published in English in 2006 as Witness to Nuremberg.
– A book about American neo-nazis by Aryeh Neier, a German-Jewish lawyer who served for twenty years as president of George Soros’s ‘philanthropic’ network, the Open Society Institute; in the Instituto Berg’s Spanish edition (2020) this book is called Defendiendo a mi enemigo; first published in English in 1979 as Defending My Enemy: American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, and the Risks of Freedom.
– The memoirs of Sari Nusseibeh, a highly controversial Palestinian seen by many of his countrymen as a traitor because he advocates giving up the Palestinians’ right of return in exchange for unspecified ‘peace’ deals with Israel; Nusseibeh co-founded a joint initiative in 2002 with Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet; the memoir was published by Instituto Berg in 2020 as Érase una vez un país: una vida palestina (first published in English in 2007 as Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life).
– El juicio del Káiser, by the Canadian Jewish academic William Schabas, a history of the attempt to put German Kaiser Wilhelm II on trial for ‘war crimes’ after the First World War; this Spanish edition was published in 2020; the first English edition in 2018 was titled The Trial of the Kaiser; much of Schabas’s work focuses on the development of human rights law in the context of the ‘Holocaust’ and the Nuremberg trial, though he has sometimes been controversial for his association with the Israeli left-wing and his criticisms of the Netanyahu governments.
– The memoirs of Telford Taylor, an American lawyer and intelligence officer most famous for his role as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial. This was published by Instituto Berg in 2022 as Anatomía de los juicios de Núremberg, and first published in English in 1992 as The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir.
– Justicia Imperfecta by Stuart Eizenstat, published by Instituto Berg in 2019, first published in 2009 as Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II. This is an account of Eizenstat’s role during the 1990s in attempts to obtain financial compensation for Jewish families whose properties, belongings or bank accounts had allegedly been confiscated or otherwise lost during the ‘Holocaust’. Since 2013 he has been the US State Department’s “Special Adviser for Holocaust Issues”, appointed to that role by Hillary Clinton.

It really could not be clearer that the Berg Institute is one of Spain’s leading academic promoters of ‘Holocaust’ studies and is imbued with an anti-fascist and ‘anti-nazi’ ethos. Meanwhile the Berg Institute alumnus Armando Rodríguez Pérez has portrayed himself for the past two years as a militant fascist, national socialist, or national bolshevik: sometimes a Carlist, sometimes a Falangist, sometimes a pro-Franco advocate of an integral Spanish nation, sometimes promoting separatist schemes. While switching switching between factions, Armando has closely associated himself with militant wings of the Spanish ‘far right’. Not only did he act as a lawyer for the leading figures in the now defunct national socialist youth group Bastion Frontal, but he inserted himself into its leadership.

ARMANDO’S INFILTRATION MISSION

In recent months the mission of the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando Rodríguez Pérez has been extended. He has sought to become ever closer to Juan Antonio Llopart, a veteran radical nationalist and publisher. Armando portrays himself as a militant anti-Zionist seeking to liaise with the Iranian government and its allies.

He is now listed as ‘political action secretary’ to Llopart’s new organisation Movimiento Pueblo, which is seeking to register as a political party in time for the 2023 local elections. At a recent Madrid conference that he helped Llopart to organise, Armando met for the first time the British activist Lady Michèle Renouf, who naturally enough assumed that he was a bona fide nationalist and anti-Zionist. During the weekend of 2nd-4th December 2022, Armando attended a small gathering at Lady Renouf’s second home in the German countryside, where fellow guests included some well known figures on the German national socialist scene. Good news for the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando, who will have picked up intelligence and made what he hopes will be useful contacts. Those involved are now being warned as to Armando’s true allegiances, and we hope that the damage will be minimised.

These British and German connections have already allowed Armando Rodríguez Pérez to insinuate himself into a scheme to obtain Iranian assistance for a political fugitive wanted by the German authorities. We are fully informed about this plan, but for obvious reasons are not yet reporting the full details. Steps are being taken to minimise the damage that the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando Rodríguez Pérez can cause – though of course it’s not yet known whether his intention is to sabotage the rescue of this dissident, or to use the entire affair in order to ingratiate himself with Iranian networks and perhaps infiltrate them on behalf of Israeli interests.

What is certain is that Armando Rodríguez Pérez is bad news for nationalists, national socialists, revisionists and anti-Zionists. Several of his inconsistent ideological positions seem to have been adopted with the primary intention of weakening and dividing the radical nationalist movement, both within Spain and internationally.

In January this year when Madrid police were attempting to track down Isabel Peralta (who was at the time temporarily resident in Germany) they were telephoned by a lawyer called Alvaro Domec who claimed to be Isabel’s legal representative. In fact she had never met him, never corresponded with him, and never heard of him, but court papers in her ongoing trial for the May 2021 speech outside the Moroccan Embassy continue to present Domec as having been her lawyer.

For unknown reasons, none of the police and prosecution files relating to the investigation of Isabel Peralta and Bastión Frontal mention Armando Rodríguez Pérez. Moreover, despite the anti-fascist and mainstream media’s intense interest in Bastión Frontal, which was portrayed for much of 2021-2022 as a particularly dangerous and violent ‘neo-nazi’ organisation, no journalist and no ‘anti-fascist’ ever exposed its co-leader ‘Armando Bastión’ as being the outwardly respectable Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez. It is worth mentioning that the legal action brought by Isabel against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, in which Armando is acting as her legal representative, has twice been extended since no response had been received by the plaintiffs within the required deadline.

Equally mysterious was Armando’s own reticence during March 2022, when his client Isabel Peralta was detained at Frankfurt Airport and questioned, before being expelled from Germany in what appears to be a potentially illegal deportation; and in October 2022 when she was again detained by German police in Hessen and served with an exclusion order. On both occasions she was badly in need of a reliable German lawyer, but Armando gave every impression that he had no German contacts who could help.

At the time of Isabel’s March arrest in Frankfurt, it was the assistant editor of Heritage & Destiny, Peter Rushton – not her Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez – who made contact with an experienced German lawyer from Berlin, Wolfram Nahrath, and asked him to represent Isabel, which he did.

This was then used six or seven months later by the German authorities as ‘evidence’ that Isabel herself had ‘high-level connections’ with ‘German political extremists’.

Completely unknown to Isabel, her Spanish lawyer Armando actually has particularly close associations with German lawyers, a fact that he had studiously avoided mentioning to her. In fact his legal office in Madrid (C. de Serrano, 79, 7d), which was at one time the office of his defunct firm GABEIRO, now operates as the Madrid branch of a legal firm called Strafverteidiger Spanien. This firm has a German name, even though it is based in Barcelona and also has a branch in the tourist resort town of Palma de Mallorca.

The firm is headed by Armando’s friend and colleague María Barbancho Saborit, and specialises in representing German-speaking clients in need of legal representation in Spain, including people accused of financial crimes and/or facing European arrest warrants.

Ms Barbancho Saborit seems to be of part-German ancestry, and was educated at the Deutsche Schule in Barcelona, before spending part of her university course at Heidelberg. There is no suggestion that Ms Barbancho Saborit is necessarily party to or even aware of Armando’s double life inside European national socialist movements. She is qualified in both Spanish and German law.

CONCLUSION

The infiltration mission of Armando Rodríguez Pérez as a spy within radical nationalist and national socialist circles raises serious questions about the Spanish justice system.

How can it be right for an infiltrator to act as the legal representative for someone accused of political crimes, when unbeknown to his client, the lawyer concerned has a long record of association with completely opposed political ideas?

Naturally it is possible for a lawyer to represent someone whose views he does not share. But in this case Armando Rodríguez Pérez pretended to share those views – in fact acted as a leader of the political groups concerned as well as lawyer for their activists – while actually having a longstanding allegiance to opposing forces.

It is urgently necessary for the present prosecution of Isabel Peralta to be abandoned, and for the Spanish secret police and prosecutors to explain just how much they know about the real agenda of Armando Rodríguez Pérez.

Meanwhile we shall continue to work with those in nationalist, national socialist, revisionist and anti-Zionist movements in various countries in an effort to minimise and repair the damage inflicted by Armando Rodríguez Pérez.

As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote more than a century ago: Aus der Kriegsschule des Lebens – Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker. “From the military school of life – What fails to kill me, makes me stronger.”

H&D writer Isabel Peralta banned from Germany for life

UPDATE: Isabel is now back on Twitter, even though banned from visiting Germany. The German government cannot suppress the truth forever, whether online or in person.

Germany is already known for its laws banning free political debate and historical research – most notoriously for the recent decision to imprison 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck. It has become almost routine for Germany to deny basic human rights to its own citizens, while welcoming alien immigrants from every corner of the world.

Now the German authorities have again breached their basic obligations under the Schengen treaty, by which fellow Europeans are supposed to be allowed freedom to travel across its borders.

They are attempting to impose a life ban on Spanish nationalist activist and H&D writer Isabel Peralta – despite the fact she has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal offence in Germany.

As we reported in Issue 111 of H&D (but has only yesterday been picked up by the mainstream press in Spain), German police detained Isabel on 6th October while she was minding her own business in the central German university town of Marburg. She was served with official papers ordering her to leave the country.

This followed earlier harassment at Manchester Airport, when Isabel was detained for more than six hours on 24th September, the night before her speech at the H&D meeting in Preston, which can be viewed online here.

It’s now apparent that UK authorities abused Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, so as to do a favour for their German colleagues. The UK authorities knew perfectly well that they had no valid reason to detain Isabel, but they used Schedule 7 as a ‘fishing expedition’ to collect political intelligence from her phone and computer, and pass it to the German authorities.

This has nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with UK law: British police and border security have become accomplices in the German authorities’ campaign of political persecution against nationalists.

Unlike post-Brexit UK citizens, Isabel is of course (as a Spanish citizen) entitled under European law (in fact under the European constitution) to enter Germany free of harassment, and for that matter to work or study in Germany.

Such rights can only be withdrawn in very exceptional circumstances: even convicted criminals are normally entitled to these rights.

In order to expel Isabel, and now to argue that she should be excluded from Germany for life, the authorities have had to argue not that she is a criminal (because they know that she has broken no German laws) but that she is a serious threat to “national security”, because she supposedly has such high-level connections with dangerous subversives in leadership positions among the “far right”, including people who aim to overthrow the German government!

This extraordinary paranoia reflects the fact that despite the evident short-term weakness of German nationalist movements, those who govern the occupied Federal Republic are aware of their lack of legitimacy. They know that their rule since the end of blatant Allied military occupation in the early 1950s has been based on lies, and they fear (correctly) that Isabel Peralta, as a brave and intelligent advocate of truth, is capable of inspiring a movement among new generations of Europeans that will eventually win.

That’s why they had to invent a quite ludicrous case against her, which now aims to exclude her from Germany for life. This legal and constitutional outrage will of course be appealed, if necessary as far as the European courts.

H&D and our colleagues in several European countries have been working for the last two months on a major investigation of the extreme measures that have been adopted by the enemies of nationalism to subvert our movement and deny legal and constitutional rights. Next week we shall publish the results of this investigation.

Our brave comrade Isabel is still facing legal proceedings in Spain under their version of the race laws (though this case is unrelated to her exclusion from Germany and does not provide any valid reason for the German authorities’ behaviour). She is also bringing a civil action against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, a case which has already begun in the Madrid courts.

Next Page »