Corbyn in trouble again – media discovers Edwardian “anti-semite”

The reissue of J.A. Hobson’s classic book Imperialism, with a Foreword by Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is again in trouble with Anglo-Jewry, after prominent Jewish journalist and Tory Lord Finkelstein (formerly Daniel Finkelstein) wrote an article for The Times this morning denouncing the Labour leader for having written a Foreword eight years ago to a book originally published in 1902!

This was the classic tome Imperialism by J.A. Hobson, well known to all serious students of British politics but apparently new to many Fleet Street scribblers.

Hobson was among the most prominent critics of the British Empire’s war in South Africa – the Boer War – in which among other outrages the British Empire pioneered the use of concentration camps to intern Boer civilians.

In the build-up to the war prominent Jewish financiers plotted with the gentile and Rothschild ally Cecil Rhodes to stage a “false flag” incident known to history as the Jameson Raid. This conspiracy failed, but it was not long before some of the same characters had successfully provoked a brutal war. There were almost 50,000 civilian casualties, including more than 26,000 Boer civilian women and children killed in British concentration camps.

Alfred Beit, one of the Jewish tycoons who plotted the Jameson Raid

Before, during and after the conflict, several leading opponents of the war – ranging from Marxists to Labour Party founders to Liberals – explicitly denounced what they saw as the Jewish influence in provoking and sustaining the conflict.

British Marxist (and first-class cricketer) Henry Hyndman attacked Jewish newspaper owners as “poisoners of the wells of public information”; he went on to condemn “this shameful attempt of a sordid capitalism to drag us into a policy of conquest in tropical regions which can benefit no living Englishman in the long run, though it may swell the overgrown fortunes of the meanest creatures on the earth”.

After the failure of the Jameson Raid, Liberal MP and journalist Henry Labouchère wrote of the plotters arrested by Boer leaders: “Many of the prisoners bear English names but are nonetheless mostly of foreign Hebrew origin, the kind of people frequently having a penchant to Anglicise their names”.

British Marxist and anti-war activist H.M. Hyndman

Socialist journalist Harry Quelch (later a friend of Lenin) wrote: “The Jew financier is the personfication of that gold international which today dominates the government and the jingo press of all countries.” Quelch later added: “We have denounced this as a Jew-Capitalist war, and seeing the prominent part Jew-capitalists have taken in the Johannesburg agitation, and seeing their intimate relations with Cabinet ministers here at home and the vituperative fury of their organs in the press, we consider the terms fully justified.”

In September 1899 the radical editor of Reynolds’s Newsapaper, W.M. Thompson, wrote: “The Transvaal policy of the present government is undoubtedly controlled by Jews so that England too is passing under the dominion of the foreigners from the East.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie concluded in 1900: “Modern imperialism is really run by half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish, to whom politics is a counter in the game of buying and selling securities.”

Even David Lloyd George (who as Prime Minister seventeen years later was to preside over the first official British backing for a Zionist homeland in Palestine) denounced the Tory government’s Boer War policies, sarcastically noting that “all our righteousness, all our hatred of wrongs was reserved for a community of Jews six thousand miles away in Johannesburg who ran away when the fighting came for their own cause.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie was among the many pioneer socialists who took an anti-Jewish line

One of the most explicitly “anti-semitic” interventions by an opponent of the war was a speech by trade unionist and MP John Burns in February 1900. Burns told the House of Commons: “Wherever we examine, there is the financial Jew, operating, directing, inspiring the agonies that have led to this war. …The trail of the financial serpent is over this war from beginning to end.”

Partly inspired by Burns, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution at its conference in September 1900 opposing the Boer War as having been waged “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews most of whom had no patriotism and no country”.

So the author at the centre of the latest Corbyn controversy – J.A. Hobson – was by no means out of line with the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of Boer War opponents. He had first been sent to South Africa to report on the brewing conflict by the liberal Manchester Guardian in 1899, and a year later his Guardian journalism was collected into a book. Writing to Guardian proprietor and editor C.P. Scott, Hobson described how he had begun to perceive the Jewish role in South African events: “Many of these men have taken English names, and the extent of the Jew power is thus concealed. I am not exaggerating one whit. I think I can prove it.”

J.A. Hobson

Hobson continued in his letter to Scott (whose family trust still owns today’s Guardian newspaper): “They fastened on the Rand …as they are prepared to fasten upon any other spot on the globe in order to exploit it for the attainment of huge profits and quick return. This small confederacy of international financiers …chiefly foreign Jews, are the economic rulers of South Africa.”

Unlike those who have so keenly jumped on the bandwagon to atack Corbyn for publishing a Foreword praising the “anti-semite” Hobson, H&D actually knows a bit about British imperial history, including the Boer War. The question should not be whether Corbyn, Hobson and others are anti-Jewish. The question should be: are they telling the truth?

Guillaume Faye (1949-2019)

One of Europe’s greatest intellectuals Guillaume Faye has died from cancer at the age of 69.

Guillaume Faye (right) addressing a meeting of American Renaissance alongside AR’s founder Jared Taylor

M. Faye was a major figure of the French New Right, originally centred on the Paris-based organisation GRECE at the end of the 1970s.

The publishers Arktos has done an important service to the cause of White European survival by producing English translations of some of Faye’s most important works, several of which were reviewed for H&D by Ian Freeman.

An obituary of Guillaume Faye will appear in the May edition of H&D.

Death of the ‘Zionic woman’

Lady Falkender, whose death was announced yesterday

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

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

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.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

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.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances

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.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

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.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset”

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.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991.

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.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991

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.

Neville Nagler

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 –

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

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.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter



National Front Remembrance Parade – Sunday 11th November

Kevin Layzell of the National Front informs us that this year’s National Front Remembrance Day Parade will take place on Sunday afternoon, 11th November 2018.

All patriots are invited to march with the NF on this historic parade, which will form up at Bressenden Place, Victoria, at 2.15 pm, marching off to the Cenotaph at 2.45 pm prompt.

This year is of course the centenary of the end of the First World War. Please note that as a consequence of centenary events, the time of this year’s parade is slightly different to past years.

Click here for further information.

 

‘Antisemitism’ in wartime Britain: article suppressed by The Times

Cyril Radcliffe (later Lord Radcliffe), Director-General of Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information

In the early hours of this morning The Times published an online article under the headline ‘Antisemitism in Britain’, revealing the attitudes held by ordinary Britons towards Jews during the Second World War. This article quoted extensively from an official British document written in May 1943 by the Director-General of the British Government’s Ministry of Information, responsible both for some wartime propaganda and for monitoring the opinions of British civilians.

Within hours The Times suppressed their own article and the link now produces a one-line message: “This article has been removed”.

H&D does not know why The Times decided their readers should not be informed on this topic – but since we ourselves have obtained a copy of the once-secret wartime document, we now publish its contents. Even if The Times is afraid of the truth, we are not.

On 27th May 1943 Cyril Radcliffe KC (Director-General of the Ministry of Information) wrote to his Minister, Brendan Bracken. Radcliffe had spent the previous morning with his Regional Officers from every part of the UK discussing “the question of anti-Semitism”. He believed that they had given him a comprehensive picture of the scale of anti-Jewish feeling among the British public and that no other organisation would have been capable of giving “a better impressionistic view of the position than they were able to provide”.

Radcliffe’s letter to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken in May 1943 about “anti-Semitism” among British civilians during the Second World War

Only Northern Ireland and North East England seemed to show little anti-Semitism, according to Radcliffe: everywhere else in the UK there was “general agreement on the fact that from the beginning of the war there had been a considerable increase in anti-Semitic feeling”. This did not seem to have been incited by anti-Jewish organisations. According to the Ministry’s Regional Officers: “They seemed to regard it as quite beyond argument that the increase of anti-Semitic feeling was caused by serious errors of conduct on the part of Jews.”

This view of Jews had developed not only in cities with a long-established Jewish presence, such as Manchester and Leeds, but also in “areas which had known the Jews mainly as wartime evacuees from the cities”.

Radcliffe continued: “The main heads of complaint against them were undoubtedly an inordinate attention to the possibilities of the ‘black market’ and a lack of pleasant standards of conduct as evacuees. The chief enemy of the Jew appears to be in most areas the small trader who suffers peculiarly from the operations of Jews, whether they are in fact ‘black market’ operations or not. There was a general belief that Jews somehow or other get supplies and advantages which are not available to other people.”

One section of the letter is still censored, dealing with the proportion of Jews involved in black market criminal offences brought before the London courts.

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (seen above right with his mentor Winston Churchill) was the recipient of a newly-revealed letter discussing propaganda strategies for dealing with ordinary Britons’ negative perceptions of Jews.

Radcliffe and his officers had discussed how official propaganda could best deal with British civilian “anti-Semitism”.

His advice was that rather than seeking to change people’s minds about Jewish behaviour and characteristics, propaganda should concentrate on hammering home the message that saying bad things about Jews was divisive and “peculiarly the badge of the Nazi”. This is strangely reminiscent of more recent propaganda that seeks to ignore specific facts about Jews or blacks, merely insisting that “the truth is no defence” in cases of “racial hatred”.

In 1943 there was of course not yet any question of criminalising “racist” or “anti-Semitic” opinions. This criminalisation of political incorrectness in Britain did not begin for another twenty years: wartime internment of British dissidents was restricted to active members of banned political groups such as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union. Radcliffe and his officials preferred more subtly to persuade Britons to adopt the view that anti-Semitism was “a thing to be regretted, even if they thought that the Jews were to a large measure responsible”.

H&D would be very interested to learn who at The Times took the decision today to censor these wartime revelations, and why. Can the paper be shamed into reinstating their own story?

 

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

New archive for British ‘alt-right’ heritage

A newly launched online archive ‘Roots of Radicalism’ contains vital resources on the ideological heritage of our movement.

This website will be regularly updated and extended: it presently contains thirty articles from the British nationalist magazine Vanguard, first published during 1986/1987.

The site’s founders write:

The term ‘alt-right’ has become widely used in recent years. It does not describe a single, monolithic ideology, but rather a spectrum of related ideas and values. However, it can be said that the alt-right generally:

  • Recognises the positive values of group identities, nationalities and ethnicities;
  • Is prepared to unflinchingly challenge the dominant values of the liberal consensus, including the obsessive egalitarianism of the left;
  • Is not materialistic, and does not think that economic growth is the solution to every problem;
  • Does not believe itself to be on the same side as global capitalism – this, more than anything else, distinguishes the ‘alternative right’ from the conventional right.

Mainstream media commentators, blinkered by years of liberal orthodoxy, have tended to regard the alt-right as a disturbing, new phenomenon. We hope they are right to be disturbed, but they are wrong if they think that the ‘alt-right’ is new: its roots go back a long way, long before the term ‘alt-right’ had ever been thought of.

This website looks at the British contribution to this dissident political heritage, and – when finished – will include hundreds of articles from a wide variety of sources, from independent thinkers to those supporting nationalistic political parties.

As you will see these articles do not represent a single ‘party line’. The writers used a variety of different terms to describe themselves: not ‘alt-right’ but radical right or new right. Indeed many would have rejected the term ‘right-wing’ altogether, believing that they were trying to create an alternative to the existing, conventional Left-Right dichotomy and not wanting to be confused with the capitalist right. Such people generally used terms like ‘radical nationalist’ or ‘ethnic nationalist’ to describe themselves. Needless to say, the political Left used rather different terms, of varying degrees of ranting hysteria…

We believe, however, that the content of their writings are more significant than the labels attached to them. What these writers have in common is that they cared about Britain and the British people and tried to show that there is an alternative to the conventional ‘-isms’ of capitalism, liberalism, socialism or communism.

We hope you find this website to be a useful resource. It is our intention to add about thirty articles a month to the site, so please bookmark us, and visit us again from time to time. If there are worthy publications, authors and articles you feel we have overlooked please contact us and let us know – we make no claims to omniscience!

The archive is online now at www.rootsofradicalism.com

The advertising industry and 21st century brainwashing

Recently the Russian-based television station RT broadcast a programme about British nationalism, The Patriot Game presented by former MP George Galloway. Amid the usual leftist hysteria there were several minutes from an interview Galloway conducted with veteran racial nationalist Martin Webster.

Mr Webster stood up well to Galloway’s standard line of liberal outrage and moral blackmail, and among the issues he raised was the incessant and insidious propaganda campaign by advertisers to promote multiracialism.

By coincidence in the very same week, an article appeared in the London Review of Books, mainly focused on the over-hyped ‘scandal’ of online campaigning and data analysis by the UK firm Cambridge Analytica during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The relevant sentence from the article was as follows:

New digital advertising billboards at Piccadilly Circus are harvesting data (they contain cameras to analyse the facial expressions of people in the crowds passing by).

This form of intrusive surveillance has obvious commercial attractions, turning Piccadilly Circus into a gigantic ‘focus group’. But is it too paranoid to imagine political / propagandistic implications also?

For example, if advertising billboards were to contain such cameras, it would be possible to compile mountains of data aggregating the responses of the general public to particular depictions of multiracialism. This would reveal public attitudes far more accurately than an opinion poll (where many respondents will give polite or ‘politically correct’ responses on racial questions).

Such data collection would allow propagandists to calibrate their approach more carefully and precisely: to promote multiracialism (or other agendas) in the most effective manner, whether gradual or blatant, according to what proves effective among the covertly surveyed passers-by.

 

Richard Edmonds speaks at POW camp commemoration

Translation of the speech made by Richard Edmonds on the 25. November 2017 at the commemoration held to remember the suffering of the German prisoners-of-war at the site of the Feld des Jammers (Field of extreme distress), Bretzenheim, near Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Note here that the Canadian historian, James Bacque, in his book, Other Losses describes the hardship suffered at this location, the Rheinwiesen prisoner of war camp, where hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of the US Army were corralled for months on end in the exposed open-air, and without any proper sanitary arrangements in place and fed on bare starvation rations.

 

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds and I am British. I would like to say here that it was the British Establishment which twice both in 1914 and then just twenty five years later in 1939 declared War against Germany, and without any good reason whatsoever.

We all know that the two World Wars were the most destructive wars that history has ever witnessed. The British Establishment’s declarations of war led to, in effect, the whole world attacking Germany. It is astounding that one nation could withstand for a total of ten years against such a combined massive force. As the French patriot and founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, the Germans are the martyr-folk of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Second World War did not end on May 1945. Neither at the Rheinwiesen POW camp nor anywhere else in post-War Germany was there an end to the suffering. The War continued: in the place of bombs and bullets there now came all the crimes and injustices that men are capable of.

Here I would like to quote the German Professor of the University of Munich, Dr. Franz Seidler, from his book, Das Recht in Siegerhand (Victors’ Justice):

“It has taken more than a half century for it to become permissible to condemn the Western Allies (Britain and the USA) for the crimes that they committed in the Second World War against the rules of war and against the treatment of civilians during and after that war. The Western Allies bombed German residential areas with the cold blooded purpose of attempting to break the moral of the population and the Western Allies cared nothing for the five hundred thousand victims who lost their lives. The Western Allies shot thousands of German POWs. After the capitulation of the German armed forces the Western Allies denied German POWs their rights as prisoners of war as guaranteed by international conventions, and left them to rot in open fields (as at the Rheinwiesen camp). The German POWs were employed illegally by the Allies as slave-labour. The Western Allies approved and supported the greatest act of genocide ever committed in Europe when 15 million Germans were expelled from their ancestral home-lands. The Western Allies ruthlessly looted German industries and stole German technical know-how. They did nothing as hundreds of thousand of Germans, denied adequate rations and heating, succumbed to hunger and cold. The Western Allies imprisoned three million Germans in camps. All this after the War was over.” Quote ends.

Dr. Seidler speaks here of the violations committed during the Second World War by the Western Allies against the Rules Of war and Conventions on Human Rights. Amongst the many other subjects in his book, Dr. Seidler deals with the Nuremberg Tribunal and condemns both morally and from a judicial stand-point the trial which the triumphant Allies (the USA, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) had organized at the end the War against the militarily defeated German leaders. Question who were the judges and prosecutors at this trial of the defeated Germans ? Answer: the British were the judges: the British who had mercilessly bombed Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin; the Americans were the judges: the Americans who destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom-bombs at the very end of the War; the judges were Soviet Russians, and everybody knows of the crimes committed by the Soviet Russians (including the rape of two million German girls and women at the War’s end). I quote again Dr. Seidler: “The Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders was a crime itself and a violation of all the rules of law of the civilised world.

But it was not only the German professor, Dr. Seidler, alone who more than half a century later condemned the the Nuremberg Tribunal of the former Allies. No, already at the very time that the trials were taking place in 1945-46, leading Americans publicly condemned the trials. For example, the top number one judge of the USA, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F, Stone, condemned the Allies’ trial as “Lynch-justice”, and leading US politician, US Senator Robert Taft, condemned that trial as a “perversion of Justice, and that America’s participation constituted a blot on the honour of the USA”; Taft went further, he predicted that in years to come, Europeans would condemn the USA for its participation. So spoke US Senator Robert Taft in 1945.

Question: Why did leading American contemporaries speak so sharply against the trial organised by the Allies in terms of “Lynch-justice and perversion of Justice” ? Answer: because at the very time of the trials rumours became too loud to be ignored that Germans held in captivity by the Americans were being tortured by American interrogators for the purpose of “softening” them up in order that they be compliant witnesses for the prosecution. To cut a long story short, the American judge, Edward van Roden, was send from the USA to investigate officially the conditions of Germans held in American captivity. Judge van Roden discovered that under interrogation, 137 Germans had had their testicles crushed beyond repair. On his return to the USA, Judge van Roden held a number of press-conferences where he revealed what he had seen and learnt.

But amongst the Western Allies it was not only the Americans who tortured defenceless Germans. The British authorities also tortured German prisoners, who it was intended should serve the Allies’ interests as defendants or witnesses in the trials that were being prepared. In 2002 the journalist, Fritjof Meyer, an editor of the (left-liberal) German weekly news-magazine, der SPIEGEL, published an article in the German government publication, OSTEUROPA, which dealt with the case of the former Auschwitz camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess. The SPIEGEL journalist described exactly how Hoess had been captured after the War by the British occupation authorities and how these had tortured Hoess almost to the point of death in order to extract from the former Auschwitz camp commandant the “confession” that he, Rudolf Hoess had murdered four million at Auschwitz,.

It is clear that the SPIEGEL journalist does not believe a word of the confession extracted from the former Auschwitz commandant. The SPIEGEL journalist, Fritjof Meyer entitled his article published in the May 2002 edition of OSTEUROPA, “The number of victims of Auschwitz”, and wrote – and I quote his words – “Four Million victims in Auschwitz – a product of the war-propaganda of the Allies” The SPIEGEL journalist went further and quoted in his article, a statement made by the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski. Dlugoborski had been the Director of Research at the (Communist) Polish government memorial centre at Auschwitz. Dlugoborski had written in the (left-liberal) German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in September 1998, and I quote:

“Shortly before the end of the War a Soviet Commission of Enquiry determined, without any further research into the matter, that the number of victims of Auschwitz was four million,” Dlugoborski continued, “although from the beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of this estimation, the estimation became dogma. Up to the year 1989 (the year of the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe) it was forbidden to question the number of four million murdered at Auschwitz; staff at the Auschwitz memorial centre were threatened with disciplinary procedures if they did so.” Although from the very beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of the estimation.

The SPIEGEL journalist Meyer concluded with: “In February 1946 the Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Major Leo Smirnov, claimed that four million been murdered at Auschwitz.” A product of war-propaganda.

Friends, it is clear that by all standards of decency, the governments of the former war-time Allies, the British government, the American government and the Russian government should officially apologize to the German people for the crimes committed by their predecessors.

Long live Germany !  Long live Europe !.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter