Footballer and ‘rapper’ find out whose lives really matter

Footballer Tom Pope has been banned for six matches by the Football Association – not for any offence committed on the field, nor for misuse of drugs, nor for anything remotely criminal.

His offence was to post something deemed ‘anti-semitic’ on Twitter.

Readers should understand that Tom Pope is not one of the multi-millionaire class of Premier League footballers. He has made his career at humbler levels of the English game, with 274 appearances for his present club Port Vale, in League Two – the old Fourth Division – scoring 90 goals and three times voted Port Vale’s Player of the Year.

Tom Pope is a long way from being a ‘famous’ footballer, but he has a cult following within a tiny subculture of the game – mainly among Port Vale fans, who are not numerous.

In January this year Tom Pope scored in one of Port Vale’s few ‘glamorous’ matches, an FA Cup tie against England’s wealthiest club Manchester City, who predictably won 4-1.

A jocular Twitter exchange after the match led one fan to ask him to “predict the World War III result”, to which Pope replied: “We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds (sic) are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

The circumstances (and the typing error) showed that this was semi-jocular banter rather than premeditated ‘anti-semitism’, and indeed nothing about Jews or Judaism was mentioned.

However the thought police were soon on the case. This week an FA disciplinary panel convicted Pope of an “aggravated breach” of FA Rule E3 – “bringing the game into disrepute”.

One “aggravating” factor was that Pope had failed to accept that his post was “anti-semitic”. In his defence he had told the panel that he had watched hundreds of videos about 9/11. “He explained that he found the videos convincing in predicting the invasions of four countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. He believed, based on those videos, that the Rothschild banking business had funded the invasions of those eight countries so as to be able to take over their banks.”

Though the FA has never claimed that Pope held “anti-semitic beliefs”, its judgment argued that “the ordinary reasonable person knows very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people – maligning the family in discourse in order to malign all Jewish people.”

They added: “It is of particular concern that even now Mr Pope does not acknowledge the antisemitic message that is conveyed by the Statement. It is also of concern that he has not seriously questioned the conspiracy theories that he has allowed to inform his views.”

Consequently in addition to his six-game ban Pope was fined £3,500 and ordered to complete an “education course” – i.e. at the age of almost 35 he is being forced to undergo a brainwashing course in establishment definitions of ‘antisemitism’.

Also in the news this week for Twitter ‘anti-semitism’ is the rapper known as Wiley (real name Richard Cowie), whose art will be little-known to H&D readers but who is “considered a key figure in London’s grime music scene”.

This acclaimed “Godfather of Grime” was awarded an MBE for his “services to music” in 2018 – perhaps a desperate effort by Theresa May’s Conservative government to win some credibility among young urban blacks and their fellow-travellers – though he endorsed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in last year’s election.

During recent weeks ‘Wiley’ has made several posts to his now-suspended social media accounts, comparing Jews to the Ku Klux Klan (on the basis that both Jews and the KKK supposedly exploit blacks), and calling Jews “cowards” and “snakes”. So far as one can make out, his politics seem to be a version of the usual ‘victim game’, by which everyone else in the world – Europeans, Arabs and Jews included – is responsible for Africans’ misfortune.

What ‘Wiley’ fails to recognise is that in this ‘victim game’, one set of people (not blacks) will always hold the ultimate trump card. He has entered an auction that he can’t win, but where he will nevertheless have to pay.

Unlike Tom Pope, it seems that there is a prima facie case against ‘Wiley’ under Britain’s race laws, and police are investigating. The Zionist lobby group Campaign Against Antisemitism (who were behind the prosecution and jailing of London Forum founder Jez Turner) are petitioning the government to withdraw the rapper’s MBE, and he has been dropped by his management company.

Needless to say, even this is not enough. Leading Zionist campaigners including Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard are staging a 48-hour boycott of Twitter this week, writing: “You refuse to act against Jew hate. You enable the likes of @WileyCEO to spread their poison.” The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis also joined the Twitter boycott.

Even the Home Office and the Prime Minister’s office have joined in the kvetching, with Downing Street spokesmen saying this afternoon that social media companies must “go much further and faster in removing hateful content”.

And here of course is the real issue. While mainstream conservative parties on both sides of the Atlantic depend heavily on Facebook (in particular) to manipulate voters’ minds – including playing subtle games with racial politics – they are determined to censor anyone using social media to ask radical questions. Hence they seize on the likes of Tom Pope and ‘Wiley’, so as to justify a broader purge.

Jack Simmonds – survivor of King David Hotel terrorist bombing – dies aged 99

One of the last British survivors of the infamous 1946 attack on the King David Hotel by Jewish terrorists has died aged 99.

Squadron Leader Jack Simmonds piloted a Whitley bomber for a few weeks during the spring of 1941 before he was shot down over Holland, spending the next four years as a prisoner-of-war.

Held at first in a Bavarian castle, Simmonds was transferred to several other PoW camps ending up at Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Silesia (now part of Poland). Here he was involved in the successful escape of three fellow prisoners in October 1943 using a ‘wooden horse’, later dramatised as the 1950 film The Wooden Horse (available on BBC Iplayer for the next eight days).

In late January 1945 Simmonds and other prisoners were evacuated from Sagan and began a long march westward with their German guards in bitter weather, ahead of the advancing Soviet Red Army.

Simmonds and his fellow PoWs eventually arrived in Luckenwalde, south of Berlin, which was captured by the Soviets at the end of April 1945, and on the arrival of US forces soon afterwards he was repatriated to the UK, where he was quickly back with the RAF.

In November 1945 he was sent to Cairo, then to the RAF Station at Lydda Palestine, where he became camp adjutant. By 1946 he was adjutant of No. 651 Squadron, which then flew Auster reconnaissance planes and played an important role in ‘Operation Agatha’, a major round-up of terrorists at the end of June 1946.

On Monday 22nd July 1946 Simmonds was off-duty in the King David Hotel, Jerusalem, which then housed administrative headquarters for the British Mandate authorities. Future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion ordered the hotel to be bombed, with minimal advance warning, so as to ensure destruction of a large cache of intelligence files related to the British anti-terrorist campaign.

The mission was handled by another future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, whose Irgun was at times a rival to Ben-Gurion’s Haganah but during this period was secretly allied to it. Future writers often found it convenient to blame Begin and the Irgun for this bombing while exonerating the supposedly more ‘moderate’ Haganah, but the true story of the terror campaign was explored by H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton and by Lady Michèle Renouf in the above videos.

The King David bombing caused 91 deaths (including 28 Britons) and many horrific injuries, but Jack Simmonds survived the terrorist attack unscathed and remained with the RAF until retirement in 1968, latterly at Lindholme in South Yorkshire. To commemorate Battle of Britain week in 1951, he landed his Sunderland flying boat on the Thames near Greenwich then taxied to Tower Bridge which was opened for him, remaining moored near the bridge for six days.

His wife Mary, herself a WAAF veteran, died in 2012: they are survived by three sons.

Squadron Leader Jack Simmonds, born 8th December 1920, died 2nd April 2020, RIP.

‘Tommy Robinson”s ex-Muslim friend attacks Scottish “racism”

Maajid Nawaz is the political establishment’s favourite ex-Muslim. Co-founder of the ‘anti-extremist’ Quilliam Foundation, Nawaz had been a member of the Islamic fundamentalist faction Hizb ut-Tahrir during his years as a student in London, but he later became a high-profile defector and critic of HUT and of what he portrays as a broader Islamist movement.

During 2013 Nawaz forged a curious political alliance with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias ‘Tommy Robinson’, founder of the English Defence League, and promoted ‘Robinson’ across the mainstream media following the latter’s split from the EDL. ‘Robinson’ later claimed that he had been on the Quilliam Foundation’s payroll for about six months.

Both Nawaz and ‘Robinson’ are enthusiastic supporters of Israel, and Nawaz became a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate. During 2016-2018 there was a legal dispute between Nawaz and the American ‘anti-racist’ organisation Southern Poverty Law Center, after the SPLC labelled Nawaz and his Quilliam group “anti-Muslim extremists”. The SPLC eventually apologised and paid Quilliam more than $3m.

However Nawaz continues to be a controversial character, with some critics doubting the veracity of his stories about the reasons for his embrace and rejection of Islamism. H&D readers can judge for themselves – all we can state for certain is that Nawaz’s account of having been persecuted by rampaging Combat 18 gangs during his youth in Southend is obvious nonsense. As with so much ‘expert’ commentary on the ‘far right’, it is self-evident fantasy, as many H&D readers who actually know the history of C18 etc. will instantly realise.

Now Nawaz has launched an attack on the “racism” of Scottish nationalists, including some within the impeccably liberal, multi-racialist SNP. He writes:

“Violent hostility to outsiders and critics is in the DNA of nationalists, whether on the Left and Right, as anyone who has debated with SNP can testify to. When that outsider has different colour skin the rage seems to be heighted [sic].”

While H&D is no friend of the SNP, it is obvious that what Nawaz really objects to here is not so much Scottish independence (which many of our readers would oppose equally passionately). What Nawaz really hates is the politics of national identity, cultural identity, and racial identity. With one exception of course. He absolutely loves Israel.

Gangster president declares war on Iran

Gangster president Donald Trump has this morning effectively declared war on Iran by ordering the murder of Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the most significant state-sponsored assassination since Czech SOE agents killed Reinhard Heydrich in 1942 – and the most significant such assassination ever to take place outside wartime.

It is immaterial whether Trump’s action was dictated by his slavish devotion to the State of Israel, or was partly inspired by the need to distract attention from his own impeachment for criminal misdeeds.

During his election campaign four years ago, Trump gave American voters the impression that he would end the era of US entanglement in foreign conflicts. Instead he has today embroiled the US in what will be a far more serious conflict than the Iraq and Afghan wars combined.

The US now stands alone, without its NATO allies, as even the British Foreign Office rushes to distance itself from the White House Godfather.  The only cheers have come from Trump’s fellow crook Benjamin Netanyahu and the neocon cabal whose influence Trump once promised to end, but who now enjoy more control over US foreign policy than under Reagan, Clinton, or Bush.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Death of the ‘Zionic woman’

Marcia Williams (later Lady Falkender) was once the most powerful woman in Britain. As political secretary to Harold Wilson – Prime Minister from 1964-70 and 1974-76 – she exercised influence in Downing Street to an extent few other such staff members have ever approached.

The precise nature of her relationship with Wilson remained a mystery, and as late as 2007 she sued the BBC for claims in a drama-documentary that she and the PM had been lovers.

Most notoriously she was held responsible for the inclusion of several disreputable businessmen in Wilson’s final honours list at the time of his resignation in 1976. This became known as the “lavender list” because it was drawn up on Falkender’s personal notepaper.

Almost all of the disreputable names on this list were wealthy Jews, but Falkender’s obituaries this weekend delicately avoided the subject of Jews and Israel – even though during the 1970s this connection was so notorious that satirical magazine Private Eye labelled Falkender “the Zionic woman”.

Heritage and Destiny readers will learn much more later this year about the web of Zionist connections in Harold Wilson’s Downing Street – a web of organised crime, money laundering and (eventually) murder.

Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:
“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:
“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:
“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:
“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.
“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.”

The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.”

On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards.
“Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day.

A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that:
“The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature.

The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law.

The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –

I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Prime Minister May blunders in attacking ‘anti-semitism’

Prime Minister Theresa May – whose devotion to the interests of the Zionist state is well known – predictably attacked her Labour rival Jeremy Corbyn in her conference speech this week.

Less predictable was the PM’s crass blunder in attempting to contrast Corbyn with his most illustrious predecessor Clement Attlee, who was Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951.

Mrs May said this week: “Would Clement Attlee, Churchill’s trusted deputy during the Second World War, have told British Jews they didn’t know the meaning of anti-Semitism?”

Someone on her staff should have told Mrs May a few basic historical facts.

Clement Attlee (along with his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin) didn’t just criticise Zionism and its fellow-travellers among Anglo-Jewry – they were at war with them!

Attlee and Bevin (in response to a remorseless Jewish terrorist campaign against British military and civilian targets) ordered the destruction of Jewish refugee ships attempting to ferry illegal immigrants to Palestine. In 1946 British troops acting on Attlee’s orders raided the headquarters of the Jewish Agency and other Zionist offices. Many of Israel’s postwar political leaders were imprisoned or interned on Attlee’s orders.

Labour minister Gerald Kaufman (who was Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Foreign Secretary during the 1980s) accused Attlee of “ingrained anti-Semitism”. According to a diary entry by Attlee’s cabinet colleague Hugh Dalton, he rejected two Jewish Labour MPs for promotion because “they both belonged to the Chosen People, and he didn’t think he wanted any more of them“.

Perhaps David Aaronovitch writing in this week’s Jewish Chronicle is correct to observe that “the Jewish community’s stand against anti-semitism has actually increased it”?

It certainly doesn’t seem to have educated Prime Minister May, one of that community’s closest allies.

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

NB: For unfathomable reasons, YouTube has suspended access to this video: this decision is presently under appeal. However courtesy of Nationalist Sentinel the video can be downloaded by clicking on the link below:

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

 

Britain’s political establishment plans to impose a ‘Holocaust memorial’ on Victoria Tower Gardens, a Royal Park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Conservationists and local residents are objecting.

In a new YouTube video Richard Edmonds reports from Westminster on this controversy, and quotes Israeli author Miko Peled on the failure of Zionism and the oppression of Palestine – which is legitimated by ‘Holocaust memorials’ such as that proposed for this site.

 

Corbyn and the uses of ‘anti-fascism’

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

So H&D readers will have been surprised to see an article yesterday by the Sunday Times‘ star reporter Andrew Gilligan, belatedly drawing attention to the real terrorists of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ and its core group ‘Red Action’.

None of the information will be news to our readers, since we have reported aspects of this story several times over the years. The best mainstream investigation remains a BBC programme broadcast almost five years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn was a particularly close friend of IRA / Sinn Fein during the 1980s, as was his then-ally Ken Livingstone. As we reported, Livingstone’s ties to the IRA almost led to his assassination by London-based Ulster Loyalists in 1993.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

« Previous Page — Next Page »