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



Political prisoner Monika Schaefer now back home in Canada

Canadian citizen and free debate champion Monika Schaefer is now back home in Canada having spent most of 2018 as a political prisoner in Germany, held under the Federal Republic’s notorious debate-denial laws.

Just a few weeks before her incarceration Monika had celebrated the 2017 Winter Solstice with friends and comrades including Lady Michèle Renouf, the late Werner Keweloh, Joe Fallisi, Guillaume Nichols, Allen Newport, Marc-Henri, and H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton (see video above).

Her brother Alfred remains a prisoner of the Federal Republic, but is confident that truth will prevail and that Germany and Europe will once again be free. Alfred’s 64th birthday is on January 30th. He can be contacted at his prison address:

Alfred Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Stadelheimer Str 12
81549, Munich (München)
GERMANY

Horst Mahler – 83 this month

Fellow political prisoner Horst Mahler will celebrate his 83rd birthday on January 23rd in prison in Brandenburg near Berlin. He has just had a second leg amputated. The operation went well, but it seems that everything is done to prevent a successful recovery of the patient.

Apparently one or more motion detectors were installed in Horst’s hospital room. They are connected with garish lights that start at his slightest movement. His room door must not be closed, so that he has not slept sufficiently for days due to the background noise. In addition, Horst Mahler is tied to the bed and is guarded around the clock by a prison officer.

How is an 83-year-old (on 23 January Horst becomes 83 years old), both legs amputated, supposed to flee? Complaints against the obviously purposeful sleep deprivation remained so far unsuccessful.

Horst Mahler can be contacted at his prison address:

Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg A.D. Havel,
Inhaftierter: Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
14772 Brandenburg
GERMANY

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

Yet again illegal immigration is in the headlines, and yet again the British government seems unable to protect our borders.

Yet this time no-one can blame the European Union, indeed the blame lies in Whitehall (and to some extent indirectly in Washington).

The latest waves of immigrants heading across the English Channel are disproportionately Iranian. Why?

There is no human rights crisis in Iran and no war displacing ‘refugees’. The push and pull factors here are twofold.

Firstly there is an economic impulse. As part of his pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi foreign policy (so far undisturbed by the Saudi authorities’ brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October), President Donald Trump has scrapped the nuclear deal previously welcomed by most western governments (including the UK) and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

In characteristic fashion the U.S. government has bullied its allies (including the UK) into collaborating with these sanctions. Inevitably this has had economic effects, so some Iranians have decided to become ‘refugees’ (i.e. economic migrants).

These migrants know also that for political reasons the British government automatically grants refugee status to Iranians the moment they arrive on our soil: there is no requirement to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. Iranians are never returned home by our immigration authorities, whatever the circumstances.

Thus the craziness multiplies: a poorly thought-out Trump policy is compounded by a propagandistic ‘human rights’ policy. The losers are long-suffering British taxpayers, as the present crisis effectively signals a green light not only to Iranians but to a wide range of potential economic migrants and ‘people smugglers’ who will be encouraged to take their chances across the English Channel.

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Vincent Reynouard at one of his many court hearings

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called “Holocaust”, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning “Holocaust”-denial.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

Demonstration marks 90th birthday of political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck

On the occasion of Ursula Haverbeck’s 90th birthday, six hundred German Nationalists paraded through the North German town of Bielefeld where the brave Revisionist is currently incarcerated for the expression of her non-violent views questioning the “Holocaust”. Speakers at the concluding rally included our friends Thorsten Heise and Nikolei Nerling, the Volkslehrer.

Letters and cards of support can be addressed to: Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Senne, Bielefeld, D-33649, Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Mid-Term Election Results Mixed, But Demographics Doom Republicans

(by James Knight for H&D)

The mid-term elections took place on November 6 in the United States. They were seen – correctly – as a referendum on President Donald Trump. In general, the results point to some trouble ahead for Trump. Despite a very strong economy, complete with low unemployment, Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. They are now down by about 37 seats to the Democrats. On the other hand, the party increased its control of the Senate by one and now hold a two-seat lead in that chamber of Congress.

 

Most parties in power get defeated – often quite badly – in the mid-term elections. Trump’s losses are somewhat less that those suffered by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama in 1994, 2006 and 2010 respectively. Democrats had a significant advantage in fund raising as almost all of Hollywood and the ultra-rich US elite support “The Resistance” against Trump. And nearly every single close election recount had Democrats winning over Republicans, which was almost certainly due to election stealing/tampering (more common in the US than many suppose).

The demographics of the election show the usual breakdowns. Non-whites voted for Democrats with the following percentages:

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

Actually, Trump did slightly better among non-whites in 2016 than previous Republicans such as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Among whites, Republicans only won by a margin of 54% to 44%. White men broke 60% to 39% for Republicans while white women were split 49% to 49%. The fact that so many whites decided to vote for Democrats is a big warning sign for Republicans. For years, the Republican party has been drifting toward becoming the party of white people. With roughly 80% of non-whites voting Democrats, and with the electorate getting less and less white with every election, the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Unless Trump can get the white vote up to 60% Republican in 2020, he will likely lose reelection.

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

Working class whites in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave the election to Trump in 2016. This was due to his stance on issues such as immigration and trade and his populist rhetoric on economic issues. This base has been slowly drifting away from Trump in the last two years.

Likewise, the Dissident Right, which also came out for Trump in 2016, has been disappointed with his performance in the last two year. Ann Coulter routinely calls out Trump on Twitter for his tough talk but inaction on a border wall, birthright citizenship and stopping caravans of illegal immigrants. Gregory Hood of American Renaissance is even more blunt:

“President Trump has governed like a moderate, while speaking like a hardliner—the worst possible combination. He has done so unnecessarily. One struggles to recapture the sense of the 2016 campaign. In retrospect, it seems like something out of Homeric times, with almost supernatural forces intervening in the affairs of men. Everything had to break Donald Trump’s way; Hillary Clinton had to make every possible mistake. Somehow, everything happened exactly the way it had to, leading to one of the most remarkable upsets in American political history.

During both the primary and general election, candidate Trump seemed to run as much against the Republican as the Democratic party. Some of his promises had cross-party appeal—notably his calls for a massive infrastructure program and his pledge to protect certain entitlements. His health care proposals were admittedly vague, as he simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something great.” However, because President Trump had directly attacked the policy preferences of Republicans such as Speaker Paul Ryan and free-market institutions such as the Club for Growth, it seemed reasonable to believe he could lead the GOP away from the unpopular, wonkish economic policies that had little appeal outside the Beltway Right. The victory of President Trump was a victory for right-wing critics of Conservatism Inc., as he showed that its support for a liberal immigration policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and slashing entitlements had no real support among the conservative grassroots, let alone the larger public.

Yet since taking office, with rare exceptions, President Trump has governed like just another Republican. The president’s first major legislative initiative was a disastrous attempt to replace Obamacare. It is not surprising that President Trump did not have a specific “great” plan regarding healthcare, yet the conservative establishment’s failure to provide a workable alternative to Obamacare is testament to its uselessness.”

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

Since the election, the press has been making much of how demographics are turning formerly red states (Republicans) into blue states (Democrats). This is entirely due to mass immigration. The US takes in over 1 million legal immigrants every year. About 90% of these people are non-white.

My own Congressional district in northern Virginia (VA-10) is indicative of this. It went for the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf won the seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and didn’t relinquish it until he retired in 2014. That year, moderate Republican Barbara Comstock (who favors high immigration) won the seat by 16 points (56% to 40%) over her Democratic challenger. In 2016, her margin of victory was only 5.5 points. This year she lost by a margin of 56% to 44% to liberal Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

While there are many reasons for her loss, the main one is this. In 2008, VA-10 was 80% white. It is now 65% white.

Virginia used to be a rural, Southern and conservative state. It is now less than 56% white. Republicans have not won a state-wide election since 2009. This same trend is about to turn once solidly red states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and even Texas blue. Orange County, California (outside Los Angeles) used to be perhaps the most reliably conservative district in the nation. It was the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet it now has all Democrat representatives in Congress.

In terms of the 2020 elections, President Trump still has time to right the ship. Building his promised border wall with Mexico would be a great first step. He has also mentioned ending birthright citizenship (where children born in the US – even to illegals – are automatically given US citizenship) and affirmative action. If his actions can match his talking and threats, Trump can win reelection. But after 2020, demographics may permanently sweep the GOP away at the national level.

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

BREAKING NEWS: MI5 takes over state campaign against ‘far right’

Andy Carmichael – the MI5 mole in the NF – operated long after the party had already gone into decline

According to a report posted this evening on the Guardian website, Britain’s security service MI5 is taking over responsibility for “combating extreme rightwing terrorism amid mounting fears that white supremacists are increasing their efforts to foment violent racial conflict on Britain’s streets”.

Until now, although MI5 maintained a small section monitoring the ‘far right’ from a counter-subversion angle, most state monitoring of such movements has been handled by the police, specifically Special Branch and its successor SO15.

For example the vast majority of operations against the ‘far right’ have involved public order questions surrounding demonstrations and marches by the likes of the English Defence League. ‘Anti-terrorist’ operations in this area have (until now) involved mainly connections between racial nationalists in the NF or BNP and Ulster loyalist paramilitaries.

As distinct from a range of police responsibilities to combat crime and preserve public order, MI5’s responsibility involves serious threats to national security. It is an extraordinary tribute to the failure of the multicultural experiment that racial nationalist groups are now deemed to fall into this category!

Contrary to the Guardian‘s implication, it is not unheard of for MI5 to take an interest in British racial nationalism. H&D has just finished serialising a detailed analysis of MI5’s files on British Movement founder Colin Jordan, dating from the 1940s to the end of the 1960s, while far more recently an MI5 agent operated inside a moribund splinter from the National Front, the late Ian Anderson’s ‘National Democrats’.

Several European countries have long-established sections of their security / counter-subversion services specialising in the ‘far right’. MI5 will hope that they fare better than their colleagues in Germany’s BfV, which has lost two directors in recent years due to scandals surrounding its handling of the ‘far right’.

 

 

Professor Robert Faurisson – the intellectual adventurer of the century – dies on return from this weekend’s triumphant trip to his native town

 

Professor Robert Faurisson died suddenly this evening, just after arriving at his home in Vichy, France, following a triumphant return to his native town of Shepperton, Surrey. He died instantly after suffering a heart attack as he crossed the threshold of his home.

Professor Robert Faurisson with Lady Michèle Renouf

Born to a Scots mother and French father in Shepperton in January 1929, Professor Faurisson would have been 90 in three months time. H&D is proud to have facilitated his final speech on the final weekend of his eventful and heroic life.

Yesterday at a hotel in Shepperton, before a personally invited audience of 70 friends and fellow students of real history, Professor Faurisson gave a masterful summary of his decades of research.

 

Time and again, beginning in the 1970s, he put his exceptional academic expertise in analysing documentary texts at the service of historical exactitude.

Travelling to many countries in his researches, Professor Faurisson was the first to establish that the so-called homicidal ‘gas chamber’ displayed to tourists in Auschwitz is a post-war ‘reconstruction’ – in fact a fake by Soviet propagandists – and the first to publish detailed original blueprints for what were later claimed to have been homicidal ‘gas chambers’ but were in fact mortuaries.

For decades Professor Faurisson was relentlessly pursued by French courts, after a special law was introduced to criminalise his work. Even at the hour of his death, several prosecutions were still ongoing in Paris and Vichy courtrooms.

Professor Robert Faurisson, Lady Michèle Renouf and the Professor’s translator and assistant Guillaume Nichols, seen here in Shepperton hours before the Professor’s death

Yesterday’s final Faurisson speech was at a private reception in his honour, arranged by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton with the backing of Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Max Musson. Guests were welcomed by Lady Renouf, and then heard an opening speech by Vincent Reynouard, the leading figure in a younger generation of Frenchmen inspired by Professor Faurisson to pursue their own researches into ‘forbidden’ history.

Professor Faurisson himself then presented a comprehensive overview of his career including very new and important discoveries – a full video of his speech will be broadcast later this week by Lady Renouf’s Telling Films. His swansong was also captured for posterity by an invited camera team from a Lebanese television station.

Just as the Professor was completing his speech, the hotel management summoned Peter Rushton. In another part of the hotel – while Professor Faurisson concluded his address – the hotel manager demanded that Mr Rushton close down the meeting. Mr Rushton insisted that the event had been booked in good faith as a private reception – with no duplicity – and that it would continue until the scheduled conclusion.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances in the 1990s

In a disgraceful breach of contract, the management then harassed the audience in the hotel’s private function room, haranguing Professor Faurisson and his friends, turning out the lights, setting off the fire alarm and playing loud disco music in an attempt to drown out Peter Rushton’s speech.

Undeterred, Mr Rushton persisted – speaking in the dark over the background noise of fire bells etc. – and the audience bravely suffered this unusual form of oratory!

The H&D team extend our profound thanks to the 70 guests from around Britain, and from Canada, Italy, France, Belgium, Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, who joined us in Shepperton yesterday and enabled Professor Faurisson to die a happy and contented man.

Our friend Vincent Reynouard uploaded the above video of yesterday’s events, just before news of the Professor’s death. A full report will appear in our January issue (since our November edition is already at the printers). As what is now a posthumous tribute to Professor Faurisson, the expanded text of Peter Rushton’s speech will also be published soon, incorporating the latest revelations from Britain’s official archives concerning wartime fakery of homicidal gassings and other atrocities.

Long live Robert Faurisson and Historical Exactitude!

UPDATE: Former presidential candidate and Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen MEP issued the statement below after hearing news of Professor Faurisson’s death. M. Le Pen writes: “I did not know Robert Faurisson personally, but the extensive means employed for decades in efforts to silence him appear to me as symbolic of the decline of freedom of speech and thought in our nation. The so-called historical memory laws used to criminalise political opponents of various persuasions are the sign of an anti-democratic strategy that the powers-that-be use and abuse against patriotic spirit and against peoples who rebel in defence of identity.”

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. Recently Lady Renouf was the Professor’s sole defence witness in Paris when he was prosecuted by a French court for his Tehran speech.

Hoax papers expose academic corruption

Three American academics have exposed the intellectual corruption prevalent among their colleagues, in what Niall Ferguson (writing in today’s Sunday Times) describes as “one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of academia”.

As Dr Ferguson reveals: “In the space of ten months they dashed off twenty spoof articles and submitted them to established journals in the fields of cultural studies, identity studies and critical theory.”

All of these fake papers were “outlandish or intentionally broken in significant ways”, including “some little bit of lunacy or depravity”.

Nevertheless numerous papers were accepted for publication by officially recognised academic journals. For example, an article titled ‘Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon’ written in the name of a fake author called ‘Helen Wilson’ was accepted and published in February this year by Gender, Place & Culture, which describes itself as “a journal of feminist geography”.

Two of this journal’s editors – Katherine Brickell of Royal Holloway, University of London, and Kanchana Ruwanpura of the University of Edinburgh – have research positions at UK universities, state-funded via the Economic and Social Research Council. The editorial board of Gender, Place & Culture includes Professor Patricia Daley, who is ‘Professor of the Human Geography of Africa’ at Oxford and a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.

‘Gender. Place & Culture’ has now retracted a hoax article, but these and other politically correct journals now have a serious credibility problem.

‘Golliwog’ row MEP quits UKIP

Bill Etheridge, seen as leader of UKIP’s libertarian faction, with ex-partner Lorraine Chew

The latest leading figure to quit UKIP is West Midlands MEP and former leadership candidate Bill Etheridge. This follows last week’s resignation of the Earl of Dartmouth, MEP for SW England.

Mr Etheridge is perhaps best known for the incident in 2011 when he and his then wife Star Etheridge (who were both Conservative council candidates) were forced to quit the Tories after they posted images of golliwogs (seen as a ‘racist’ symbol) on Facebook.

A remarkable number of UKIP’s MEPs have quit since the party’s finest hour in 2014 when it elected 24 members to the Brussels / Strasbourg parliament.

Roger Helmer (East Midlands) quit the Parliament entirely in July 2017, but the rest of the defectors have continued to sit as independents or for other parties. Janice Atkinson (SE England) was expelled in March 2015; former leadership candidate Steven Woolfe (NW England) left UKIP in October 2016 and has recently applied to join the Tories; former leader Diane James (SE England) left in November 2016; Jim Carver (West Midlands) walked away from UKIP in May 2018.

And within the last ten days Dartmouth and Etheridge have been the latest departures.

Bill Etheridge was forced to quit the Tories in 2011 after he and his then wife posted golliwog pictures on Facebook.

Bill Etheridge has long been seen as leader of the ‘libertarian’ faction in UKIP, which until recently was seen as especially strong among the party’s younger members. These are people whose main interest in politics is what they see as extending the Thatcher revolution – shrinking the state, cutting taxes and reducing the ‘burden’ of regulation on business.

The likes of Etheridge are far less concerned about issues such as immigration.

In his resignation letter to UKIP chairman Gerard Batten, Etheridge wrote:

“The changes you have made since becoming leader have changed the party beyond all recognition.

“You have allowed your personal obsessions free rein. The party is now seen by large swathes of the British public as a vehicle for hate towards Muslims and the gay community.

“While there is a place for extreme nationalist and reactionary views in politics and I defend the right of you and others to hold and express your opinions, I do not believe these were the opinions and policies that Ukip MEPs were elected to represent.”

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter