Leading revisionist scholar visits London

Exiled Swiss revisionist historian Jürgen Graf visited London last week with his Russian wife Olga, attending celebrations for the 80th birthday of traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.

Jürgen Graf lost his job as a teacher of French and Latin once his research about Second World War history was published, and in 1998 he was convicted and given a jail sentence – again for his published views. He fled his native country and has lived as a political refugee in Moscow for fifteen years.

Mr and Mrs Graf – together with Bishop Williamson and H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton – visited Lady Michèle Renouf’s Kensington home for tea: the video above (Real History Kamikazes) includes teatime discussion of how Jürgen Graf came to historical revisionism; his subsequent researches and publications; and the continent-wide persecution of revisionists.

By an extraordinary coincidence, during the recording of this teatime conversation, Lady Renouf’s Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath telephoned with news that she was being summonsed for trial in Dresden on May 15th. (see our earlier report on these criminal charges)

Alfred Schaefer (presently imprisoned in Germany) with his Canadian-born sister Monika Schaefer who was herself given a 10-month jail sentence in 2018 for posting online videos about German history and culture.

Canadian-born Monika Schaefer is among the recent victims of German court repression, and her brother Alfred Schaefer remains in a Munich jail. The Schaefers are good friends of Lady Renouf, and Monika recently posted a message of support on her blog.

H&D will continue to report from this frontline in the fight for historical and political honesty.

Role Model on Trial – May 2020

“Michèle, your fearless and direct utterances in Dresden, unfortunately forbidden to all Germans, blew open the window of truth in one blast.”
said Gerard Menuhin, son of legendary violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, in February 2018

On 15th May 2020 an Australian-born Briton goes on trial in Dresden for “incitement” – not for terrorism or threats, but because of a 10-minute speech given to 300 mourners at a commemoration of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden in 1945.

The charges have been brought under Germany’s draconian Volksverhetzung law – Para 130 of the criminal code, against Lady Michèle Renouf, former wife of New Zealand banking tycoon Sir Francis (‘Frank the Bank’) Renouf who was honoured with the Verdienstkreuz by the then West German government. In 1990 the engaged couple travelled to Bonn for the award of Sir Frank’s medal, and as his fiancée Lady Renouf was given a Verdienstkreuz lapel ribbon. This honour related to Sir Frank’s pioneering role in persuading the German federal government to relax its conservative policies and invest its financial surplus on world markets. (For similar reasons he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.)

In February 2018 Lady Renouf attended a public commemoration in central Dresden, marking the anniversary of the 1945 terror bombing by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF. Responding to an anti-British comment by someone in the crowd, Lady Renouf was invited to give a brief spontaneous speech in which she acknowledged Britain’s shame for its deliberate wartime policy of targeting civilians.

During this speech she referred to the following facts:

a) Many influential Britons at the time condemned Churchill’s barbaric terror bombing policy and the associated demand for unconditional surrender – such people included Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey, founder of the modern civil service); the Rt Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Labour MP and future minister Richard Stokes; and government scientist and future bestselling novelist C.P. Snow.

b) The terror bombing of Dresden was a literal Holocaust in which tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive. We shall never know the atrocity’s exact death toll, because the city was packed with refugees – uncounted and undocumented – fleeing from the advancing Soviet Red Army.

c) The wider relevance of the Dresden war crime – Renouf emphasised – is that so-called ‘moral bombing’ of Dresden by the Second World War allies has effectively acted as a precedent for postwar crimes against civilians including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn has prompted unprecedented floods of refugees into Western Europe.

d) The Allied justification for this targeting of civilians was that Britain and America were at war with Germany, yet this factor is ignored when discussing what has become known as the ‘Holocaust’, an unchallengeable dogma taking the place of history.

e) The simple fact that Jewish civilians were interned in camps is today regarded as a ‘war crime’ and part of ‘genocide’, regardless of what did or did not happen in the camps themselves, a topic which Lady Renouf did not address, knowing that it is illegal in Germany to debate such matters. It is odd to condemn internment itself as criminal, bearing in mind that both Britain and America interned enemy aliens. It is scarcely surprising that European Jews were placed in this “enemy alien” category, given the actions of the self-styled leaders of World Jewry who had as early as 1933 declared economic war on Germany. Moreover the future founders of Israel such as Chaim Weizmann were actively engaged in a campaign of covert warfare, some of it contrary to international law, in collaboration with Britain’s Special Operations Executive. In itself it was not unreasonable for the German authorities to intern large numbers of European Jews as potential collaborators in this covert war.

It is for making these points in her brief impromptu February 2018 speech that Lady Renouf was arrested and now faces trial in Dresden on 15th May 2020 for offences which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Her trial will focus press and public attention on the extraordinary German laws that deny normal historical debate and rational argument. These and similar laws in many other European countries (though not so far in the UK) were condemned more than a decade ago by a coalition of eminent historians and other academics writing under the label ‘Appel de Blois’: these critics included the late Eric Hobsbawm; Jewish journalist and author Geoffrey Alderman; Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg; and the Oxford professor Timothy Garton Ash.

Lady Renouf’s own background is not as an historian, scientist, lawyer or politician. So how did someone whose lifelong career since early childhood was as a model and advertising actress come to be on trial in Germany charged with having expressed forbidden opinions and having uttered forbidden historical facts?

Born in 1946, Michèle Mainwaring was directed mainly to classical ballet studies from the age of 3 to 23, eventually for a licentiateship at the Royal Academy of Dancing in London. Her earlier four years of undergraduate art studies at the National Art School were partly financed by her parallel modelling career (beginning at age 7) and prizes in beauty contests, including winning Radio 2HD’s Miss Beach Girl, Miss Newcastle & Hunter Valley, and Miss Zhivago. (The latter title, twenty years later was to bemuse Dr Zhivago’s co-star Omar Sharif, when he and Lady Renouf enjoyed gaming at London’s Ritz Hotel casino.)

Having graduated with a Diploma in Art (Education) in 1968, she lectured in Fine Arts and introduced Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

At age 14 Michèle Mainwaring was performing as Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at the Sydney Conservatorium when the world-famous former Ballets Russes dancer and choreographer Kiril Vassilkovsky came backstage seeking to recruit her “ethereal quality” for the role as Clara in his production of The Nutcracker. However her mother would not allow her to leave school to joint the company!

The young Michèle performed as Radio 2HD’s Shirley Temple, singing and tap dancing for the station’s famous children’s radio presenter Twink Storey as an infant performer and symbol of innocence in the postwar years. While the actual Shirley Temple became a US Ambassador, Lady Renouf in later life was to have a rather different involvement with diplomacy and politics – considered by some to have an ‘ambassadorial’ role as a champion for the rights of historical revisionism without exceptionalism!

The future Lady Renouf came to England in the late 1960s shortly before her marriage to the late Daniel Griaznoff, descendent of a Russian noble family. During the 1970s and 1980s she used her marital title of Countess Griaznoff in association with many charitable activities and became well-known in London society. Prolific romantic novelist and socialite Barbara Cartland delighted in entertaining Count and Countess Griaznoff at her country home. Actors Edward Fox and his wife Joanna David generously contributed their celebrated artistry to charity soirees and balls hosted by the Griaznoffs at their Hampstead home.

Meanwhile from age 15 Lady Renouf had been recruited into an international career as an advertising actress in television commercials alongside her modelling career. This led to magazine and television advertisements worldwide for products and companies as diverse as Deutsche Post, Tchibo coffee, British Airways, Cable & Wireless, Nissan cars, Lenthéric perfume, and hundreds more. On screen she appeared with such legends as the Muppets and Dick Emery. In 1973 (for example) she appeared as a ‘Bond girl’ in the BBC’s arts documentary show Omnibus episode on The British Hero.

In the mid-1990s Lady Renouf become a member of the fundraising advisory board for the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe on Bankside, chairing the principal fundraising event. As a professional designer of garden mazes and knot gardens, she had also designed an Elizabethan knot garden and labyrinth for the Globe approved by the project’s head Sam Wanamaker, intended as part of the re-education of the general public in the coded poetic messages of flowers, familiar to a Tudor mindset but now lost: her knot garden project was featured in a major article for the Sunday Times.

In this invited role Lady Renouf mobilised a range of contacts among London’s diplomatic corps (built up as a longstanding member of the Ladies’ Committee of the European-Atlantic Group) to assist in the Shakespeare’s Globe project, including Adm. William Crowe, US Ambassador and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who became a family friend; and Australian High Commissioner Neal Blewett. After completing raising funds for the construction of the Wardrobe of Robes room, behind the Globe’s stage (marked today by a bronze plaque) – Lady Renouf’s private tribute to her mother, who was a designer of ballet costumes – she also invited another family friend Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon, to include his contribution to a time capsule buried beneath the reconstructed theatre.

Oddly the first steps towards Lady Renouf’s involvement with “political” questions came as the result of a Jewish member of her Shakespeare’s Globe committee insisting on the entire menu at a fundraising dinner being kosher. Merely the appearance of a non-kosher item on the menu sent this woman into a rant about “tyranny” and “anti-semitism”.

Understandably Lady Renouf was puzzled by this inexplicable reaction, and this led her into further investigations of the taboo subject of “anti-semitism”. She carried out extensive research into the composer Richard Wagner’s attitude to the Jewish question, and in 1997 published the monograph Richard Wagner’s Art-work of the Future and Judaism: Inspirational or Conspiratorial. The central thesis of this monograph was that “anti-semitism” is a misnomer because it implies a racial critique of Jews, whereas one ought to focus on a cultural critique of Judaism. Her thesis attracted the attention of professors from Heidelberg University, who invited Lady Renouf to participate in a conference on Wagner at the German American Institute, Heidelberg. She was regularly honoured by invitations from the late Wolfgang and Gudrun Wagner to their private supper intervals at the Bayreuth Festival, where for a decade she sat at the right-hand of the composer’s grandson. Lady Renouf’s monograph was sold at the Festspielhaus book kiosk.

Soon afterwards the notable Wagner scholar Rudolph Sabor (1914-2013) cast Lady Renouf to star in his play about the composer’s life that was due to be staged at the New End Theatre, Hampstead, which had been booked for a three-week run. Mr Sabor (a Berlin-born Jewish musicologist) came under pressure from Lady Young (wife of Thatcher-era cabinet minister Lord Young) who withdrew her and others’ funding from the production, forcing its cancellation, after Mr Sabor refused to replace Lady Renouf.

At the end of the 1990s Lady Renouf visited Palestine with her high society chum the Bey of Haifa, Jeannot Khayat, who informed her for the first time about the outrageous “absentee law” whereby Palestinian homes can be confiscated by the Israeli state if their owners leave the country even for a holiday.

Early in the 2000s she met and recorded interviews with British veterans of the war against Zionist terrorism in Palestine, 1945-48. These included unique interviews by the late Phillip Knightley with British Army veteran and author Eric Lowe – now archived at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Some of these landmark interviews (in cooperation with anti-Zionist Neturei Karta rabbis, Palestinian diplomats, and commentators including Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon) appeared in Lady Renouf’s first documentary film projects, Palestine Scrapbook and Israel in Flagrante: Caught in Acts of Twistspeak, screened at the House of Lords and House of Commons, under the auspices of Dr James Thring and Lord Stoddart.

In 2000 Lady Renouf attended the London trial of a libel case brought by the British historian David Irving against the Jewish-American author Deborah Lipstadt: this was the first she had heard of debates around the “Holocaust”, but she later became aware of a worldwide campaign of persecution against historical sceptics, notably the jailing of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik, Monika and Alfred Schaefer, and Ursula Haverbeck – including their lawyers Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz. In 2006 she attended David Irving’s trial in Austria, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, eventually being released after one year thanks to an appeal filed by celebrated Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller. (In the recent film Denial, an actress plays the part of Lady Renouf, seated on the court bench as the sole observer on Irving’s side of the court throughout the hearings.)

Lady Renouf with the late Prof. Robert Faurisson

During the summer of 2001 Lady Renouf arranged a meeting between Irving and Prince Fahd bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, eldest son of the present King Salman. Prince Fahd was owner of many racehorses including the 1991 Derby winner Generous, who was celebrated in a hillside maze garden designed by Lady Renouf, a friend of the Prince and Princess, at their Harewood estate in Surrey where Queen Elizabeth II had planted a tree. In a telephone call from Riyadh following their meeting, Prince Fahd confirmed his intention to purchase the entire property including Irving’s flat in Duke Street, Mayfair, and turn it into a “Real History Institute”, but he died suddenly a day later aged only 46.

One consequence of Lady Renouf’s defence of Irving was that a cabal of opponents engineered her expulsion from the Reform Club in 2003, following an earlier unsuccessful attempt to expel her in 2002 (when she was defended by eminent pollster Sir Bob Worcester). Lady Renouf had invited Irving to an event at the Reform Club (alongside family friend Count Nikolai Tolstoy) in the week of the Lipstadt trial verdict.

Since 2006 Lady Renouf’s Telling Films has produced many DVDs on the stifling of historical debate and the persecution of revisionist historians, scientists, authors, publishers, and latterly even their lawyers. These documentaries include Jailing Opinions, focused on the prosecutions of Irving in Vienna (Austria), Ernst Zündel in Toronto (Canada), and Robert Faurisson in Paris (France), and later documentary films such as Dresden Holocaust 1945 – An Apology to Germany is Due; Out and Unbowed, about Ernst Zündel’s trials and imprisonment; Mourning the Victims, Naming the Culprits about the British torture centre at Bad Nenndorf (Germany); and many others.

In 2006 Lady Renouf attended and spoke at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, hosted in Tehran at the instigation of Iran’s then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The topic of her conference address was “Psychology of Holocaustianity” – an echo of her postgraduate studies in Psychology of Religion a few years earlier at London University’s Heythrop College. Veteran revisionist scholar and literary document analyst Professor Robert Faurisson said that he gave Lady Renouf’s speech “20 out of 20”!

Nominated by Prof. Faurisson, Lady Renouf was elected to serve on a five-member international fact-finding committee created at the end of the Tehran conference to advance research and support informed historical debate.

Between 2006 and 2020 Lady Renouf has been interviewed in many television and radio debates and discussions with (for example) Dr David Duke, Prof. Norman Finkelstein; former CIA officer Dr George Lambrakis; Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom; the Rev. Stephen Sizer; and Dmitry Shimelfarb, former adviser and press spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2005 she was honoured with the George Orwell Award by the Canadian Free Speech League, and has spoken at conferences in Canada, the USA and Mexico. Several of these speeches, films and interviews have focused on Lady Renouf’s campaign to raise awareness about the first, pre-Israel Jewish Homeland option in Birobidjan – the Jewish Autonomous Region created in 1928 in the former Soviet Union and still flourishing to this day in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When the Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in October 2008 and subjected to a European Arrest Warrant seeking his extradition to face criminal opinion charges in Germany, Lady Renouf mobilised a defence team that successfully opposed the warrant as invalid, forcing the German authorities to back down and accept his release. The Töben case proved an important precedent in relation to the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson, who was convicted in Germany for answers he gave to a Swedish television crew in November 2008, but who as a consequence of the success in Töben’s case, could not be subjected to a European Arrest Warrant. On Bishop Williamson’s return to London in 2009 he was met at the airport by Lady Renouf, who gave interviews to BBC Radio 4 and the World Service later that day, in which she debated the issues involved with Deborah Lipstadt and the late Greville Janner of the World Jewish Congress.

Now those same German authorities are seeking revenge in a wholly unwarranted prosecution of a British citizen for a perfectly normal and reasonable (though unplanned and unprepared) speech in Dresden two years ago, a speech intended as a humble acknowledgment of British guilt and contrition for a terrible crime against German civilians committed 75 years ago.

By this politically-motivated prosecution, the moribund Merkel government’s servants in the German state apparatus dishonour their own dead, and discredit themselves before the world’s media.

Lady Renouf’s former husband Sir Frank Renouf was a prisoner-of-war in Germany for four years following his capture after parachuting into Greece on 26th April 1941. His time in an officers’ prisoner-of-war camp in Bavaria was well spent learning German from a friendly guard with the aid of Schiller’s poetry, building a tennis court, enjoying Red Cross food parcels, and conducting a correspondence course with Worcester College, Oxford, where he was admitted for a postwar degree. His German connections were strengthened after the war as a friend of British Prime Minister Edward Heath and eminent figures in European banking including the British Lord Kindersley (a director of the Bank of England) and the German Hermann Abs (a director of Deutsche Bank). The Renoufs’ matrimonial home at 37 Eaton Square, Belgravia, had during the 1930s been the home of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who immediately before the Second World War rented out this same property as the home of German Ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop – the first prisoner executed by the Allies at Nuremberg in 1946.

It remains to be seen whether 21st century Germany will be as hospitable to Lady Renouf as wartime Germany was to her former husband!

  • Friends and international observers will be welcome to attend the trial. Twitter and blog accounts carrying regular updates on the Renouf case will be online soon; check https://twitter.com/ModelTrial for details.

Patriotic Alternative hold second successful meeting in London

Given the county of origin of the two leaders of the Patriotic Alternative, the conference started auspiciously when on arrival I engaged a distinguished-looking gentleman in the venue’s car park and he proved to be by profession a tea-blender, who had achieved some kind of acme of achievement by being the man whose taste-buds had put together the secret formula which has made Yorkshire Tea Britain’s number one blend. And he it was who had also suggested the name. So that intelligence immediately ingratiated me with Laura Towler and Mark Collett.

It can scarcely be over-stated, how difficult it is to organize and successfully host large scale international meetings of this quality, given the contrary conditions that have to be contended with: it has to be accessible enough for new or young people to be able to attend and at the same time inaccessible enough that saboteurs do not prevent the event from taking place. And given the broadcasting workload that Mark sustains as the over-all coordinator.

By general consent, it was the largest nationalist meeting of its kind in Britain for over a decade. It was twice the size of the first PA conference in Lancashire. And the people were of the quality of those who attend the Scandza Forums; and that is the real extent of its success. Just to speak personally, two public school educated artist friends of mine had registered to attend quite independently of me who decades ago when we were working on projects together used merely to smile at me when we talked politics.

The attendees at the meeting evinced what Jared Taylor repeatedly says about the way the movement has changed in his lifetime of activism. Normal people are now the norm and not the exception.

This gathering further evinced what seems to me true, that in the absence of a default ethnically specific and indigenous religion, such as Hinduism for Indians, in the vacuum that is opening up at the heart of Western culture, this movement is increasingly taking on a spiritual dimension––because it needs to in order to fill that vacuum. The charismatic last speaker of the day, Jason Köhne, with all the eloquence of a man seemingly brought up in the tradition of gospel preaching, inspired everyone with how he invoked the “Spirit of the West”, as that which lies dormant within us and may be kindled and raise us into the sky like an eagle that had forgotten its own wings. He used the phrase several times and, in each context, it could have been replaced with the word “God” or, more specifically, with the name of one of the European Gods.

The first to step to the podium to speak was the prime mover of the event, namely Mark Collett. In developing his general theme of community building, he extolled the benefits of face to face interaction, which, by all the additional information that tone of voice and body language can supply, forges firmer bonds, with far less of the characteristic misinterpretation that can occur online and that can rapidly deteriorate into name-calling. And he asserted the need for the provision of “safe spaces” in order that what he described as the most unfairly maligned and oppressed people, namely, the indigenous population, can freely interact and form friendships, as steps towards ensuring that everywhere in Britain is such a safe space.

It is almost disrespectful to commend the craft of Dionne Møller’s speech as it was one of the most disturbingly graphic accounts I have heard from the lips of a contemporary, yet at the same time she was able to transmute the dark unpleasantness of her experience into something of useful effect. In a quarter of a century’s service as a decorated police officer, she saw some truly harrowing sights, but she said that it was only one that led her to shed a tear and took her to what she now believes. I shall let you find out what that was by watching the video (at Secret Sources, her YouTube channel or at another channel, Patriotic Talk). Naturally, she was able to amplify the subjective with objective corroboration by providing statistics to show how horribly widespread what she had been witness to is. She invited us to see the internal tears that we all have shed over something similar and that have brought us to where we are now as a common reservoir to draw upon and out of which fertile action will be born.

Even more timely now than then, from a recently locked-down Barcelona, Simon Harris presented his speech via a video-link to his house, where he had decided to remain since, had he flown to Britain, he would not have been able to return to be with his family and support them at this most important and uncertain time. He spoke of his fairly recent ideological migration from civic to ethnic nationalism and of the advantage that such people have in being able to see more readily the two positions and argue for the latter; and he spoke of the great potential in disillusioned inveterate Labour Party voters to be attracted towards a “Patriotic Alternative”, since their allegiance to the party had always been more identitarian than ideological. The circumstances of his confinement focused his mind inevitably upon the virus. On the one hand, whatever its origin, the governing powers could use its presence to institute “police state measures”, which once in place, they might be reluctant to withdraw later; and they might further the elimination of physical money and attempt to delay the implementation of Brexit. On the other hand, it could show the value of effective border controls, “increase xenophobia in a good sense”, and begin to localize the economy when components from the other side of the world ceased to be so easily available. Which was to corroborate a theme I had heard Nigel Farage articulate on the radio a few days before when he said that he thought the virus would lead to the collapse of the EU since it showed that when a matter of vital importance arose, each nation acted in what it perceived to be its own interest. Certainly, this kind of contingency does question some of the assumptions of globalism. Ultimately, a nation-state community that is relatively more self-sufficient in resources and skills, that is, which has grown no larger than that size which its land’s and people’s attributes can sustain, will be relatively more safe and sound than one needing Chinese expertise to maintain its infrastructure and far-flung foreign farms to put food on its tables.

Colin Robertson (AKA Millennial Woes) appropriately enough addressed matters pertaining to millennials and their woes and to the currently unhealthy state of the relation between men and women; and he did so through illustrations taken from his own upbringing and from the role his YouTube channel has played in his personal evolution. He opened with the statement that the fact that millennials have less sex is because the genders have become too similar in their behaviour, and proceeded to expatiate upon what he described as a feminisation of our societal values wherein the avoidance of conflict and the establishment of a pastel-tinted harmony tended to stifle other aspirations that entail conflict and competition: discovery, grand enterprises, pursuing a vision through to its fulfilment or failure. The ultimate harmony, he said, is nothingness; and yet the harmony of the womb is not a place of safety when transferred to the real world, where functioning society needs men behind the scenes maintaining its foundations.

Men always need to be expanding. Weak men seek the unconditional love of their mothers, which is different from the love of a spouse, which is always conditional. Healthy women select men strong enough to reject them. But modern women have no need to select for quality because of the welfare state.
He spoke of how his mother had imbibed feminism whilst not being a feminist herself and how her view of men made him not want to become one. Masculinity is under attack because white men are under attack. We are not genetically weaker than our forefathers. Women will not change; we must change and so change them.

It is your gifts that matter, not you. You are the vessel and the vessel can be repaired. If your life is a giving of your gifts to the world, you are a success.

I think the concluding sentences are wise and why, I would suggest, his work will be studied in universities within fifty years, because there is nothing like it within nationalism, in its personal honesty and philosophic profundity.

Laura Towler’s speech was one of the most valuable contributions to the day in that it explored practical steps to ameliorate the demographic decline facing the indigenous population, and it spoke rationally about the explosively emotive issue of repatriation. It is easy to react to things one does not like, to blame and to complain, but to suggest feasible means to reverse the trends that have brought them about is the engineering needed to change people’s minds. People can persuade themselves to call anything good if they think it is inevitable. And no one will expend energy in any cause if they do not believe it is achievable. She suggested offering to pay £15,000 per person, of any age, plus the cost of a one-way ticket to the ancestral country; so, for a large family, this could be a tempting offer. Illegals and criminals would be deported without reparation. Laura then answered several of the more common objections to such programmes.

When the matter of whether this country needs a constitution or not is raised, it singularly always fails to address the matter of this country’s physical, human constitution, which is the underlying causative body, whatever the “constitutional” governmental clothes in which it may articulate itself. Like a jar of strawberry jam, for it to be legally deemed so, it should be constituted by a certain percentage of strawberries, rather than by anything else that may have been planted on the ground where strawberries once were the only cultivated fruit. If the physical constitution, the limiting proportion of essential ingredients is stated, then demographic planning can take place to ensure that it remains what it is, that its “constitution” is defended (though that phrase has now such a hollow ring given its paradoxical use in Germany to outlaw those who would defend its physical constitution).

The builders of Cologne Cathedral laboured to complete a project they would never see come to fruition

The day was brought to a peroration by the exceptional oratory of Jason Köhne, whose talent to extemporize and entertain made him the ideal final speaker, who was thus able to summarize what those who spoke before him had said and to cast it into a coherent whole. He powerfully put forth his vision of one people, many lands. I wished I had had time to ask him to if he had in mind a certain anthropological history when he said that at some point, we were one people, or if he had meant this in a more cultural sense. One image remained with me. That of the first builders of Cologne Cathedral, which was to take eight hundred years to complete. They laboured upon what they knew they would never see come to fruition. We must all do what is right without thought of the immediate result.

As I write, I think all the speeches are available on YouTube, but not necessarily on one channel. Audio is available at Radio Albion.

H&D Issue 95 published

The new issue (#95) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is now out. The 26 page, March-April 2020 issue, has as its lead:

UK RACE MARTYRS

Peter Rushton concludes his series opening official files on the trials and jailing of British racial nationalists

Issue 95
March-April 2020

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Scientific sexism – Simon Sheppard grapples with the short and curlies.
  • Trump Abandons ‘America First’ – by Peter Rushton.
  • Slavs and the Untermensch Big Lie – Eddy Morrison challenges the Third Reich’s critics.
  • Opening the Files on Race Criminals in Modern Britain: Part IV – by Peter Rushton.
  • Book Review: A Call to Arms! Radicals and Visionaries of The British Isles, edited by Troy Southgate – reviewed by Ian Freeman.
  • Book Review: The Strange Career of Mr Hoover Under Two Flags, by John Hamill – reviewed by Bancroft Hall.
  • Old Poet’s Corner – A Song of Geography – by G.K. Chesterton.
  • Obituary: Roger Scruton (1944 – 2020) – by Peter Rushton
  • Movie Review: Midway – reviewed by Robert Hampton
  • Two 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 (6 issues) subscription, send £28.00 (UK) – $52.00 (USA) – £35.00/$52.00 (Rest of world).

UKIP fast disappearing, while populist independent wins by-election

A populist independent – boxing coach Ken Dobson – won a Manchester City Council by-election this week in Clayton & Openshaw, just west of the city centre. Mr Dobson becomes one of only four non-Labour members among 96 city councillors.

Independent Dobson won a majority of 108 over Labour’s African candidate. The Lib Dems also put up an African, and the Tory was Asian – so Mr Dobson and the Green were the only White candidates.

This Manchester upset contrasted with miserable results for two other ‘protest vote’ candidates yesterday.

UKIP’s Geoff Courtenay (above right) welcomes then party leader Richard Braine to a Hillingdon branch meeting

UKIP’s Geoff Courtenay polled only 16 (sixteen) votes (0.8%) in Hillingdon East ward, Hillingdon. He is an experienced UKIP candidate, and in fact stood here at the General Election against Prime Minister Boris Johnson last December. And this is a ward where UKIP polled 19.3% in 2014.

One really must wonder how long UKIP will carry on. Perhaps it will linger in the manner of the Social Democratic Party that was dissolved in 1988, but which kept going under the same name but a different structure under former Foreign Secretary Dr David Owen. Even this SDP was closed down in 1990, but a tiny band of supporters keep up the name to this day. Similarly, occasional eccentrics might still stand as UKIP candidates in future, though even that will require someone to keep filling in the forms and sending in accounts to the Electoral Commission, so total extinction within the next year or two might be more likely.

Former councillor Brian Silvester

Meanwhile an ex-UKIP councillor and frequent purveyor of social media outrage, Brian Silvester, was bottom of the poll with 34 votes (2.2%) as an independent candidate for Crewe South ward, Cheshire East. UKIP polled 14.8% in this ward in 2015. Since leaving UKIP, ex-Cllr Silvester spent a couple of years as a prominent ally of Anne Marie Waters in her For Britain Movement, then left to support the Brexit Party last summer.

Taken together, this week’s local government by-elections demonstrate both the continuing demand for a radical populist alternative to the established parties, and the continuing absence of a mass party answering that demand.

Carl Harley: 70+ years in British nationalism!

Carl Harley (1930-2020)

We greatly regret to inform readers that H&D‘s second-eldest subscriber Carl Harley died on Saturday 22nd February, aged 89.

Carl Harley, who lived in Highgate, North London, was a long-standing H&D subscriber. He was not afraid to put his hand in his pocket, and sent H&D a donation a couple of times to help us keep going.

Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself;
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.

We are grateful to Bill Baillie of the Nation Revisited and European Outlook blogs for this memory of Carl Harley’s lifelong commitment to our cause, first published in 2016.

Carl Harley – the man who recruited John Bean

I first encountered Carl Harley and John Bean at a National Labour Party meeting in Trafalgar Square in 1959. I was there as a schoolboy, on a bicycle, with my mate Paul Barnes. But I didn’t get to know them properly until the BNP camp held in Norfolk in 1962.

Carl Harley was born in Greenwich on 26 June 1930. He was a member of the Mosley Book Club in 1947 and joined Union Movement on its foundation in 1948. He did his National Service in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps from 1948 to 1950. When he came out of the army he was appointed organiser of the Lewisham branch of Union Movement, where he signed up a young man called John Bean before going to Manchester to help Jeffrey Hamm.

He fondly remembers his old comrades; Alexander Raven Thomson, Victor Burgess, Peter Lesley-Jones and Pat Dunigan; but he disliked Alf Flockhart. In 1958 he joined John Bean’s National Labour Party which merged with Colin Jordan’s White Defence League in 1960 to form the British National Party. In 1962 Colin Jordan broke away to form the National Socialist Movement. Carl tried to persuade John Tyndall to stay with the BNP but he decided to join Colin Jordan. Thirty-five years later, whilst writing to thank Carl for a donation, JT acknowledged his mistake.

Carl was a founder member of the National Front in 1967. He followed Andrew Fountaine into the NF Constitutional Movement in 1979. The NFCM was absorbed into John Tyndall’s British National Party in 1984. Carl stayed with the BNP until John Tyndall was ousted as leader in 1999.

Today he subscribes to Heritage and Destiny and keeps in touch with old friends all over the world. When I interviewed him for this article he was reading Jewish Supremacism by David Duke.

Carl Harley was not an armchair patriot. He was an organiser of branches, a public speaker, a builder of platforms and scenery, a painter of banners, a printer and distributor of leaflets, a campfire cook, a writer of letters, a security guard, a receptionist and a willing helper. I am glad to call him my friend.

As BNP members pose outside their Princedale Rd headquarters, Carl Harley is busy upstairs cleaning the windows.

Remembering the 1945 Dresden Holocaust

H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton was among more than 2,000 marchers in Dresden yesterday who commemorated the 75th anniversary of the RAF and USAAF terror-bombing of the city on 13th-14th February 1945.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Thuringia NPD leader Thorsten Heise: the banner reads – “Where Justice becomes Injustice, Resistance becomes a Duty!”

The Gedenkmarsch was superbly organised by Maik Müller of Dresden NPD, and was supported not only by NPD branches from across Germany, but by many other parties and by supporters from other countries including Ireland, France, Sweden, Croatia, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Belgium, the Netherlands and USA – even from as far away as Japan and Australia.

Despite efforts by the usual antifa rabble to block the march route, we were able to proceed through a residential area of Dresden (many locals observing from nearby flats) to a rally point next to the central train station, where speeches included a message from Wolfram Nahrath, attorney for persecuted patriots and defenders of truth and justice including the jailed authors Ursula Haverbeck (now 91) and Horst Mahler (now 84) and the British traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.

As can be seen and heard in attached video links, the respectful and dignified conduct of the marchers contrasted with grotesque behaviour of ‘antifascist’ counter-demonstrators who failed in their objectives. The rentamob’s disrespectful cacophony was drowned out by solemn classical music accompanying the march.

The UK Sunday Times today could not resist publishing an attack on the demonstration, written by the paper’s foreign editor Peter Conradi, a well-known Jewish-Zionist historian. As has become the habit of establishment journalists, Mr Conradi seeks to minimise the Dresden death toll and accuses 21st century German patriots of exaggerating it.

A Dresden spokesman for AfD (the fast-growing patriotic-conservative party Alternative für Deutschland) had quoted a death toll of close to 100,000 – a figure which Conradi compares to the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”, while himself insisting on a figure of 25,000.

The actual Dresden death toll remains difficult to assess precisely due to the large number of refugees from the East who had packed into the city at the time of the bombing. Yet one very recently released document from the postwar secret British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department) offers us some clues.

H&D reports this document for the first time today: click here to read: Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust – The Secret British File.

Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust: The Secret British File

On 13th-14th February 1945 more than 2,000 planes from the RAF and USAAF raided the historic city of Dresden, capital of the German state of Saxony. Recent commemorations of this terror-bombing’s 75th anniversary have led to renewed controversy over the total number killed, though it is acknowledged that almost all the victims were civilians including many refugees, women and children.

On 16th February the Sunday Times published an article by its foreign editor Peter Conradi accusing German patriots of exaggerating the Dresden death toll for political gain. Conradi singled out Tino Chrupalla, leader of the fast growing anti-immigration party AfD in Saxony, who had suggested a death toll of close to 100,000, which according to Conradi echoed the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”.

Just who is engaged in Holocaust-denial here?

For clues to the answer we might turn to a secret document from the covert British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department), released to the National Archives just before Christmas 2019 and recently obtained by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

We publish this secret file’s contents today for the first time, and will soon tell the full story of how the British secret state conspired to silence challenges to Second World War history.

A rare photo of British propaganda chief Norman Reddaway (1918-1999) seen here with his wife Jean.

This particular file begins with a broadcast on the ITV television network in 1970, coinciding with the Dresden bombing holocaust’s 25th anniversary. Norman Reddaway, who had been co-founder of IRD at the start of the Cold War, but by 1970 was a senior Foreign Office diplomat in overall charge of Britain’s propaganda efforts, wrote to IRD’s director Kenneth Crook about the programme.

Reddaway complained that by giving a death toll of 135,000 this ITV documentary “had quoted Dr Goebbels’ version of the number of casualties. He had not quoted any other estimate, which would of course have been much lower. The viewers were therefore left with an uncorrected impression that RAF bombing had resulted in three or four times the true number of casualties.”

In response Reddaway suggested that IRD should deploy its trusted arsenal of propaganda tactics: a planted question by a helpful MP in the House of Commons, or a letter to The Times in the name of some respectable stooge. However senior IRD official Colin MacLaren, whose experience of secret propaganda went back to the war years where he had been part of the Special Operations Executive and Political Warfare Executive, insisted that this 135,000 figure was probably not a German exaggeration.

MacLaren wrote: “I am somewhat surprised that Mr Reddaway should assume that Dr Goebbels’s estimate of the Dresden casualties was higher than others (presumably allied) estimates. Surely the converse is true? I do not recall that the German propaganda machine was even concerned at the time to exaggerate the effects of Allied attacks.”

It was later confirmed by another IRD officer, ‘Tommy’ Tucker, that the programme’s figure of 135,000 Dresden deaths came not from any German propagandist, nor even from the best-known historian of the raid David Irving, but from Andrew Wilson, defence correspondent of the left-liberal newspaper The Observer.

British propagandists in 1970 unsuccessfully sought to dispute historians’ estimates of the Dresden death toll during the 25th anniversary of the terror-bombing. Another 50 years later, deluded German leftists unsuccessfully tried to block a commemorative march remembering the victims on the 75th anniversary, but were swiftly dealt with by police (above).

Moreover it turns out that the historical adviser to ITV’s Dresden programme was Professor Asa Briggs, a very respectable and not at all ‘right-wing’ historian who had himself been on the wartime staff of Britain’s famous codebreaking operation at Bletchley Park. (This latter fact was so secret back in 1970 that it was not committed to paper even in IRD files, but in his old age Prof. Briggs gave details of his secret past.)

Nevertheless Tucker confirmed that if necessary IRD still had a “letters to the Press drill” that could be deployed, and that if a Labour MP’s signature was required they could easily recruit one (willing to put his name to any text IRD supplied) via Maurice Foley, a former IRD propagandist himself who had become an MP and served as a minister responsible for promoting immigration (!)

Eventually Reddaway agreed to drop his objections to this particular TV programme, but efforts to undermine challenges to orthodox Second World War history continued at the highest level of Britain’s secret state.

Keep reading Heritage & Destiny for further exclusive investigations of this remarkable topic, coming soon!

Efforts to minimise the holocaust of German civilians at Dresden continue: the only official mention of the human inferno is carved on this inconspicuous stone bench in the city centre, part of the entrance to public lavatories. At least German patriots ensured that flowers were laid here to mark this 75th anniversary (at the spot where thousands of the victims were cremated).

Brexit Day – is it?

H&D correspondent Peter Hollings, writes from Leeds, Yorkshire.

Tonight there will be lots of people around the country celebrating Brexit Day. 11pm this evening marks the point at which the United Kingdom will finally get rid of the EU shackles that have blighted our lives for so many decades now.

At least that’s what all those out and about later today will be thinking as they vigorously wave their Union Jack flags and vociferously belt out Rule Britannia loud and proud into the night sky.

Whilst patriots across the nation are collectively giving the two -fingered salute to Brussels I’ll be looking on from ‘afar’ and directing a wry little smile at all those who for whatever reason think we have somehow achieved a monumental and history-making victory over our globalist oppressors.

Don’t get me wrong, I always enjoy seeing we Brits come together in acts of celebration regardless of its nature. Whether we’re singing patriotic songs and waving flags at events such as The Proms (minus the LGBT flags of course) or coming together in acts of remembrance for our war heroes, or celebrating sporting victories on the world stage for example, nothing gladdens the heart more than seeing our people openly and proudly wearing their patriotism on their sleeves.

My problem is that these Brexit celebrations are being held way too early and I feel that there are going to be an awful lot of patriots who are going to be disappointed and deflated in the coming months and years.

The fact of the matter is that a true Brexit, that is to say a return to full sovereignty, will not occur for many years to come. This is because only a true Nationalist government will ever have the will to protect and maintain our full sovereignty.

Consider the following:

1) Britain will legally leave the EU and enter a ‘transition period’ which runs until December 31. During this time the UK will remain subject to EU laws and free movement of people will continue.

2) We will continue to pour billions of pounds into the EU’s coffers during that transition period. We will have all of the usual costs but none of the representation whilst we maintain our expensive financial obligations towards the EU budget.

3) There’s a very real probability that the transition period will be extended (despite Boris Johnson’s rhetoric to the contrary) for a further one or two years delaying our departure further. Who is to say that the extension period won’t be continued for even more years after that?

The National Front marches against the EEC, Kidderminster, 1984

4) The Northern Ireland question is far from complete. The architects of our destruction want a united Ireland in an effort to further dismantle our Union just as they want to see an ‘independent Scotland and an independent Wales (and Cornwall for that matter) eventually.

Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU rules on agricultural and manufactured goods, while the rest of the UK will not.

Additionally, the whole of the UK will leave the EU’s customs union but Northern Ireland will continue to enforce the EU’s customs code at its ports.

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE WILL MAINTAIN PRIMACY OVER UK LAW in certain matters because of these afore-mentioned NI trading agreements. This is not regaining full sovereignty or achieving a full and hard Brexit.

5) The Tory government says that after Brexit EU citizens will no longer have priority status when it comes to the issue of entry into Britain. We will, in all likelihood, see an actual reduction in the numbers coming over from the likes of Poland and Romania etc but in my opinion it will mean an increase in those arriving from Africa, the Far East, the West Indies, India, Pakistan and the Middle East. Our enemies are not going to stop mass immigration and the Great Replacement project just because of Brexit or should I say BRINO (Brexit In Name Only).There’s no call for celebration here wouldn’t you agree?

6) Britain/USA trade deal. Does anyone seriously think that a trade deal negotiated on behalf of Britain by Tory arch-capitalist globalists and Israel ‘Firsters’ will secure a deal that is actually good for Britain, because I don’t? Trump is waiting in the wings with his fellow neo-Con hawks to stitch the UK up ‘big-time’.

Any deal concluded will without a shadow of a doubt be good for the USA and bad for America’s ‘bitch’ – because that is how they see us and it’s how they see the rest of the world also. I expect our NHS to become a casualty eventually of any future trade deal in spite of persistent denials by the Tories who say the NHS isn’t for sale.

7) Even Farage has acknowledged that we will not have our full fishing rights and waters returned to us after Brexit negotiations are concluded. If this is so I have to ask what other areas of British life we are going to have to accept compromises on?

As there is still so much uncertainty ahead of us it really does surprise me that the Leavers are so willing to prematurely indulge in celebration and triumphalism at this early stage in proceedings.

I’ll save my celebrating for when I see a complete cessation of mass immigration into Britain. I’ll crack open the bubbly when I see Islam eradicated from our shores. I’ll pat myself on the back when I see a return of an above average birthrate figure for native Brits and a reduction in the birthrates of all the various foreigner groups residing here.

ALL IS CERTAINLY NOT LOST, BUT ALL IS FAR FROM BEING WON YET.

For me the flag remains at half-mast for the time being.

Surge of support for Italian anti-immigration parties

The results of two regional elections in Italy show strong support for the parties of the populist and nationalist right, though the left clung on to power in Emilia Romagna, while losing calamitously badly in Calabria.

Lega strongman Matteo Salvini (affectionately known as “il Capitano”) had a mountain to climb in Emilia Romagna, which, despite being one of Italy’s wealthiest regions, has consistently returned left wing regional governments since 1945. Indeed, its principal city, “Red Bologna” (a pun on the famous red bricks of which it is built, combined with its preference for left wing parties) was notoriously anti-fascist even in the years of Mussolini’s rule, when opposing fascism took much more courage than it does to-day.

Il Capitano’s task was not made any easier by the choice of Signora Lucia Borgonzoni to lead the right-wing coalition. She is relatively unknown, whereas the centre-left’s candidate, Stefano Bonaccini, was the outgoing regional president who had, by common consent even of his political opponents, led a highly competent administration for many years.

Italy’s complicated version of proportional representation means that different parties find it helpful to group together in combined lists, while maintaining their separate identities by a process of allocation of seats within the list according to the percentage taken by each constituent party.

For each region there are moreover (confusingly) two sets of statistics, one for the election of the regional president, another for the elections to the regional parliament.

While Signor Bonaccini won the regional presidency by a convincing margin (51.4% of the vote to Signora Borgonzoni’s 43.6% and a paltry 3.47% for the Five Star (left populist) Simone Benini), voting for the regional parliament was much closer than predicted by the opinion polls.

In the event, the centre left list took 48.7% to the right’s 45.5%, Five Star’s list polling only 3.4%.

The votes cast for the left were apportioned between the Democratic Party (liberal-left) on 34.59%, a Bonaccini support group (left) taking 5.8%, and several smaller green or leftist parties making up the balance of the left’s vote (excluding the Five Star movement, which, as we have seen, presented its own remarkably unsuccessful list).

The lion’s share of the vote on the right went to the Lega on 31.9%, with fourteen seats in the 48 member regional parliament, while the Fratelli d’Italia (who do not disguise or apologise for their fascist heritage) polled a satisfactory 8.6%, so taking three seats in the regional parliament. The rump of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia took the one remaining seat allocated to the right-wing parties.

Lega leader Matteo Salvini (above right) with his party’s regional candidate in Emilia-Romagna, Lucia Borgonzoni.

While some on the left have sought to portray the results in Emilia Romagna as a major blow to Matteo Salvini’s hopes of returning to power, in truth his list ran the left to within less than 4% of the vote in the left’s strongest region in the face of a national mobilisation of leftist activists.

The big winner in Emilia Romagna was turnout at 67.67%, up from a very low 38% at the previous regional elections. The big loser was the Five Star Movement. It presented a joint list with the Communists (once a major political party in Italy) but polled only 3.4%, below the threshold for representation in the regional parliament.

Meanwhile in the poor southern region of Calabria, the left was routed. Here the centre left vote was very fragmented across multiple lists, so that Forza Italia’s candidate took the regional presidency with an impressive 55.3% of the total vote, while the second placed candidate took only 30%, and multiple other lists share the remaining 14.7% of the vote.

Forza Italia took 12.58% of the vote on the party list system, the Lega 12.21% and the Fratelli a pleasing 11.14%. The vote on the left was ever more fragmented over multiple parties.

Jole Santelli (above left), winner of the Calabrian regional election, with her Forza Italia party leader, Silvio Berlusconi. While Forza Italia is now very much the smallest and declining partner in the populist right coalition nationwide, it is the largest coalition partner in Calabria.

While il Capitano was denied the victory in Emilia Romagna that would probably have led to the collapse of the present Five Star/Democratic Party coalition that clings tenuously to power in Rome, both the Lega and the Fratelli continue to make encouraging progress, while Five Star is on the verge of collapse.

To put Five Star’s performance in context, it is still the largest party in the Italian parliament, but now faces annihilation whenever and wherever new elections are held. It was the future once, but is now given over to internecine strife so bitter that its former leader, Luigi di Maio, resigned a few days ago, saying that his real enemies were all elected representatives of his own party, which sounds even worse than our own, dear Labour party.

While nothing is certain in an uncertain world, it does seem likely that a Lega/Fratelli/Forza Italia coalition will at some point take power in Rome, but this time, unlike in 1922, by completely lawful and democratic means.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter