Woke censorship of UK Latin teaching

The tide of ‘woke’ political correctness has finally reached one of the final bastions of traditional British education – the small number of schools that still teach Latin.

Classical education was fundamental to many generations of Britons, including those who built and ruled the British Empire (often in conscious emulation of the Romans). Now that traditional education is deemed to have transgressed against the holy commandments of ‘woke’.

At the centre of the row is the Cambridge Latin Course, a series of books first introduced in 1970 and now used in the vast majority of those British schools that still teach Latin. (Although when I was taught Latin from 1978-1984, we used much older textbooks, and until this row developed I knew nothing of these Cambridge books.)

The books teach children their first simple Latin phrases by introducing the household of a Roman called Lucius Caecilius – a real man who lived in Pompeii, the city largely destroyed by volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Caecilius himself had probably died seventeen years before this eruption, but his home can still be seen in the ruins of Pompeii and some of its contents are in the Naples archaeological museum.

The problem for modern politically correct censors is that Caecilius – like all wealthy Romans of his era – owned slaves. These slaves were probably White, but the racial politics of our own era means that any mention of slavery requires all White people to grovel in apology, however absurd, ahistorical or otherwise meaningless such apologies are.

The teaching of history is no longer an end in itself – still less is it allowed for Europeans to have any pride in their classical ancestry. Rather, it is compulsory to search for aspects of the past that lead to denigration of our own civilisations.

In addition, the school and university curriculum must be purged of anything that might cause offence to any protected group. The league table of protected groups is headed by Jews, then extends via ethnic minorities, the infinitely expanding variety of sexual minorities, and eventually to women in general. The only group without a victim card to play in this game are White men.

And the problem with the Cambridge Latin Course is that the slaves in Caecilius’ household are portrayed as going about their daily tasks in a normal and even happy environment.

A nuanced approach to teaching Latin (and Ancient History) would have to accept that there were many brutal realities, or just very strange aspects of life in the ancient world that are not suitable for young children, so inevitably when they are introduced to this world it will be in a sanitised and incomplete form.

But for the woke generation of teachers, the whole point of teaching any subject is to instil wokeness. So the Cambridge Latin Course seems likely to be scrapped, and replaced by something that better suits the brainwashing agenda of the 2020s.

Perhaps one of Roman history’s traditional villains will be reinvented as a hero for the 2020s?

Publius Clodius was a vicious gangster and pervert whose murder by a rival gangster in 52 BC led to one of the great speeches by Cicero, the most famous legal orator in history, who successfully defended Clodius’ murderer Titus Annius Milo.

In this speech (Pro Milone) Cicero refers to Clodius’ part in one of the greatest scandals of Ancient Rome some ten years earlier, when Clodius disguised himself as a woman in order to infiltrate the traditional women-only religious rite of the Bona Dea.

This was an all-night festival conducted at the home of Rome’s ceremonial chief priest (on this occasion Julius Caesar), but in an environment that was not only all-female but which had to be ritually cleansed of all male associations before the ceremony (even of male animals or works of art portraying men).

So when Clodius dressed as a woman and attended the event, it was a major scandal, inevitably involving rumours of sexual perversion involving Caesar’s then wife and even Clodius’ own sister. Modern readers are perhaps most familiar with the case because of the phrase Caesar used when divorcing his wife: although there was no proof that she had connived with Clodius, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”.

The scandal of Publius Clodius at the rite of the Bona Dea, as depicted in 1810 in an engraving by Silvestre David Mirys

Clodius was prosecuted for incestum (which in Roman law meant ‘sacrilege’ rather than what we would now call ‘incest’, though one of the allegations was that he had indeed committed incest with his sister).

He was eventually acquitted because a powerful political ally bribed the jury. In 2022 the verdict of woke historians does not need to be bought. After all in our world, we are no longer permitted to recognise biological differences between men and women, so the Bona Dea ceremony itself would be unacceptable and Clodius would be judged a pioneering transsexual hero!

Perhaps the cross-dressing adventures of Clodius will replace the now-unacceptable Cambridge Latin Course as a means of introducing children to the classical world?

Or more likely the entire history of that world will be scrapped, and replaced by something more suitable for teaching European children that they must bow down before Africans.

British historian condemns ‘moronic’ wokeness of US National Archives

British historian Andrew Roberts has ridiculed the US National Archives for its latest display of wokeness, after Washington officials placed a ‘trigger warning’ notice next to its historic copy of the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

‘Trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ have become commonplace in academic and public institutions in recent years as wokeness has taken over. The idea is that minority groups (or just people with ultra-woke ideas) might be offended by any contact with people or writings that convey different ideas, even in a historical context.

As Roberts (biographer of the wartime British Ambassador to Washington, Lord Halifax, and more recently of King George III against whom the Declaration was written) pointed out last weekend to an audience at the Oxford Literary Festival: “Anyone who thinks an 18th century document is not going to be outdated, biased and offensive is frankly a moron. When you go to see the Declaration, you read what it says about Native Americans and so on, you won’t be so offended that you can’t stand up.”

The really interesting thing about this row is what it tells us about American notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’. While liberals like to parrot the Declaration’s phrases about “all men” being “created equal” with “inalienable rights”, they ignore that in practice this meant White men.

The rotunda of the US National Archives in Washington, where the Declaration of Independence – and now the absurd ‘trigger warning’ – are displayed

Hence the words that are now found objectionable, where the Declaration complains that King George:
“has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Rather than focus their complaint on the word “savages”, the woke brigade might do better to reflect on what this tells us about American values than and now, and about the broader values of liberalism.

Red Indians – now known as Native Americans – supported the British Crown because they knew that the Empire offered them a better deal than they would get under liberal capitalism. The same applied half a century later to the British working-class, exploited as footsoldiers by the liberal middle-class in their campaign for ‘reform’, but then left worse off then ever under the ‘free’ capitalism of early and mid-Victorian England.

As for ‘racism’, Americans might find it uncomfortable to reflect on the fact that their famous Olympic athlete Jesse Owens was treated far better by Adolf Hitler in national-socialist Berlin in 1936 than he was by his fellow Americans!

And the American “rule of warfare” – despite the implication of their own Declaration of Independence, has turned out to be truly destructive “of all ages, sexes and conditions”, from Dresden to Hiroshima to Baghdad.

What this ridiculous fuss about ‘trigger warnings’ really tells us is that it is absurd to try to force history into our 21st century preconceptions. In Washington this absurdity takes the form of placing warning notices next to the Declaration of Independence, in modern Germany it takes the form of locking up 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for expressing forbidden historical opinions and daring to ask forbidden questions.

American Olympic gold medallist Jesse Owens (above right) with fellow long jumper Luz Long, a German who won silver at the same 1936 Olympics in National Socialist Berlin. Luz Long was killed while fighting with the Germany Army in Sicily in July 1943, aged 30.

Isabel Peralta reports on her arrest – new video update + new Instagram link (March 27th)

Isabel Peralta, the 19-year-old student who during the past 12 months has emerged as the brightest leader of a new generation of European nationalists, was stopped by border security at Frankfurt airport last Tuesday (15th March).

On searching her hand baggage she was immediately detained, even though the only item found was a copy of Homer’s Iliad – which dates back to the 8th century BC!

Spanish and German security services whose officers were waiting for Isabel at the airport had clearly planned her detention in advance and had files ready on her political activities, none of which are grounds for deportation from Germany.

As explained in the video below, a process was under way to deport Isabel from Germany on grounds of “threat to national security”, long before her other bag was retrieved from the plane’s hold. Other items in that bag (widely reported in the media) were her private belongings and therefore not an offence under Germany’s ‘public order’ law. In fact the authorities had no grounds under the Schengen treaty governing EU travel even to search the bag.

This and many other aspects of the case – including the fact that Isabel was for many hours denied access to a lawyer – are now being pursued.

After being detained overnight Isabel was deported back to Madrid, where on Friday evening (March 18th) she gave the live interview above, now available with English subtitles.

Commenting on Instagram earlier today, H&D‘s assistant editor wrote: “Isabel Peralta is the bravest and best comrade I have encountered in any country. She has sought to direct the new generation of nationalists in a principled, intelligent but strategically sensible manner. She is the very opposite of a terrorist or criminal. Her treatment yesterday and today is a disgrace to the Federal Republic and I have every confidence that her legal representatives will ensure she is not treated in this manner in future. All friends of the real Europe should give Isabel every support.”

Later we shall report further details of this disgraceful abuse of power by the authorities of the Federal Republic. Legal proceedings continue and we are confident that Isabel’s German lawyer will resolve the matter in her favour.

An article by Isabel Peralta will appear in the May-June edition of H&D. Our readers will be hearing a lot more from this excellent representative of European youth. Click here for Isabel’s YouTube channel.

For an update on Isabel’s case in Madrid against the professional liars of the international media, please click here.

UPDATE 20th March: On Friday evening Isabel appeared on a live broadcast from Madrid, in which she answered a range of questions about her unconstitutional detention. The story is very different from that told by the mainstream media. Please click here to watch an English-subtitled version of this broadcast. We apologise for very occasional passages that are unsubtitled for technical reasons.

UPDATE 27th March: Isabel Peralta has a new Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/aquiles.helade/ See her introductory video below (with English subtitles).

Isabel writes: “Following the censorship suffered by people and organisations critical of the state welfare system – a system whose highest values according to the constitution are ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, and ‘political pluralism’ – I feel compelled to open another account. All Europeans must have the right to know the true ideas of their blood.”

Spot the criminal – Germany seeks to jail 93-year-old publisher while ‘Holocaust’ museums hang on to billionaire gangster’s donations

Ursula Haverbeck at the Berlin appeal court, 18th March 2022

Ursula Haverbeck – the extraordinarily courageous German patriot and educator now aged 93 – was back in court earlier today in Berlin, appealing against convictions for ‘Holocaust denial’ and a 12-month prison sentence.

This is a combined appeal against two convictions and sentences for similar ‘crimes’, one in 2017 involving a speech to an audience of 80 people in Berlin; the other in 2020 relating to a YouTube interview conducted by Nikolai Nehrling, known in German nationalist circles as the Volkslehrer.

Mainstream German press reports see nothing wrong in dragging a 93-year-old lady through the courts for the ‘crime’ of doubting and asking questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews by a mysterious unique mass murder weapon – the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

H&D’s assistant editor has met Ursula several times, and she could not be further from the stereotype of an ‘inciter of hate’. She is a polite, very well-educated lady who expresses her views in reasonable terms. And it should be noted that she is one of the last generation of Germans who experienced the horrors of fleeing with her family from the invading barbarians of Stalin’s Red Army in 1945.

Ursula Haverbeck knows what it means to be a genuine refugee.

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right) at today’s hearing

A very different type of human being is Roman Abramovich, chief financial fixer for the bloodstained tyrant Vladimir Putin.

BBC’s Panorama broadcast a detailed investigation of Abramovich’s criminal career on Monday evening. It is crystal clear that – aided and abetted by both Boris Yeltsin and in particular Putin – Abramovich built his fortune on defrauding the Russian people of literally billions of pounds worth of their national assets.

The beneficiaries of Abramovich’s loot include two of the world’s leading ‘Holocaust’ museums. A few days ago we discussed his links to Yad Vashem in Israel. Now it has become clear that the Imperial War Museum in London has no intention of returning the money given by Abramovich for its vastly expensive new ‘Holocaust’ gallery.

The museum has not disclosed quite how much Abramovich donated, but the total budget for the exhibition is at least £30.5 million.  In addition to his personal contribution (or should we say the contribution of the long-suffering Russian people, since Abramovich’s wealth comes from assets stolen from them) Abramovich also staged a fundraising event for the project at Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea Football Club, which he owned until his London assets were frozen this week.

London’s world-famous Imperial War Museum, founded in 1917, bends over backwards to avoid any association with ‘racism’ or ‘slavery’ – yet shamelessly hangs on to millions donated from the ill-gotten fortune of Roman Abramovich

At the time of the donation in October 2018, the Imperial War Museum’s director gushed that: “This donation will enable IWM to reinterpret these galleries, which will present critical insights into the Holocaust as well as integrate the devastating events of the Holocaust into the broader history of the Second World War, revealing why this often overlooked dimension is so important.”

Quite shamelessly – given that it is one of the world’s leading military museums so ought to be taking a close interest in the world-changing events currently under way in Ukraine – the IWM says it will be “retaining the funds from Roman Abramovich”, and in the sly tradition of the barrack room lawyer insists: “This is compliant with all government regulations regarding sanctions”.

Meanwhile Yad Vashem has said only that it is “suspending its strategic partnership” with Abramovich and has yet to confirm whether it will hand back any of the stolen money.

While the Kremlin dictator Putin attempts a real genocide, valiantly resisted by Ukrainian patriots, his gangster henchman Abramovich has funded several prominent examples of a one-sided view of history – exploited for the benefit of yesterday’s Soviet butchers, today’s Russian imperialists, and the shameless Zionist pirates of both yesterday and today.

Those like Ursula Haverbeck who face trials across Europe for the ‘crime’ of ‘denying the Holocaust’ doubtless appreciate the irony that official ‘Holocaust history’ is funded by one of the world’s worst fraudsters, whose career of theft and brutality has been protected by a genuine war criminal.

On Monday Ursula Haverbeck’s latest court ordeal continues in Berlin. H&D will carry further updates throughout the case, both here and in forthcoming issues of our magazine.

‘Holocaust’ memorial appeal judge is wife of leading Jewish politician

Plans for the giant ‘Holocaust Memorial’ dwarfing London’s major heritage sites

Regular H&D readers will know that there has for several years been a plan to build a gigantic ‘Holocaust memorial’ in the heart of Westminster – close to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey – and taking over one of Central London’s few green spaces, Victoria Tower Gardens.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton submitted a detailed report in 2019 to the original Westminster City Council planning enquiry, which went on to reject the planned memorial.

However government ministers appointed a central inspector who override the decision of local planners.

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Today that central government decision is being challenged in court, reopening the question of whether this monstrous ‘memorial’ will ever be built.

Readers can assess the arguments for themselves by reading Peter Rushton’s fully documented article here.

And we shall of course report on the progress of today’s appeal.

However one strange fact is worth pointing out immediately. The judge in this High Court Appeal is Mrs Justice Thornton – better known as the wife of former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.

Justine Miliband with her husband Ed – then Labour Party leader – on election day. Swapping her political hat for her judicial one, Mrs Miliband – aka Mrs Justice Thornton – is now sitting in judgment on the London Holocaust Memorial plans.

In 2015 her husband publicly supported the initial plan for a London Holocaust Memorial – and now Mrs Miliband (aka Mrs Justice Thornton) is sitting in judgment on the final version of the same project. We have no reason to believe that Mrs Miliband/Thornton is anything other than totally honest and unbiased, but can this be right, when justice must be seen to be done?

Ed Miliband’s grandfather Sam was a committed communist who fled to London as an illegal immigrant from wartime Belgium. He had earlier fled from his Warsaw birthplace after betraying his own country to fight alongside Trotsky’s invading Red Army during 1920. See our report a decade ago.

Ed Miliband’s grandfather Sam (left) and father Ralph were illegal Jewish Communist immigrants. His wife Justine is now sitting in judgment on plans for a giant ‘Holocaust Memorial’ in London.

Latest woke insanity sees Shakespeare’s theatre issue ‘anti-semitism’ warning

In the latest pathetic display of woke ‘sensitivity’, Shakespeare’s Globe has issued a warning to theatre-goers that The Merchant of Venice – currently being staged by candlelight at the Globe’s Sam Wanamaker Playhouse – “contains antisemitism, colourism, and racism”.

We aren’t quite sure what “colourism” means, but we can be sure it isn’t an apology for the Globe having cast two black men and one Asian women among characters meant to portray 16th century Venetians.

As for “anti-semitism” – can anyone planning to see The Merchant of Venice really be unaware that its central character – the moneylender Shylock – is perhaps the most archetypal Jewish villain in literary history?

If the Globe were really concerned about whether the Shylock image is fair or not, then instead of this pathetic cringe perhaps they would care to sponsor a conference or study day to accompany the production? H&D would be very happy to provide a speaker.

For example we could discuss two statements by one of the greatest figures in British political history, Ernest Bevin, who founded Britain’s largest trade union, took charge of labour relations in Churchill’s government during the Second World War, and was Foreign Secretary for almost six years after the war, when he was the co-architect of NATO.

Bevin told the Trade Union Congress during the 1931 economic crisis: “It is a game of Shylock versus the people, with Shylock getting the pound of flesh every time.”

And at an emergency Cabinet meeting soon after the Second World War, by which time war debt had tightened Shylock’s grip. Bevin said in Cabinet (!) that “we [the British government and by extension the British people] are in Shylock’s hands”. This observation was so incendiary that it was not typed into the official Cabinet minutes, but appears in the handwritten notes of that meeting taken by a senior civil servant.

This was at a time when British soldiers and police were fighting Jewish terrorists in Palestine, and although it took almost three years, ‘American’ pressure eventually forced the British government into acquiescence in the creation of Israel in 1948.

So if the Globe really wants to discuss the question of ‘anti-semitism’ and Shylock in a British context, let’s start with Ernest Bevin and discuss whether his views reflected ‘racism’ or reality.

Or is the Globe interested only in woke posturing rather than scholarship?

Jewish actress Maureen Lipman in race row over film about Israeli PM

The latest politically correct row in the acting profession has come from an unexpected quarter.  In issue 96 of H&D, a professional actor and longstanding racial nationalist using the pseudonym ‘Jack Antonio’ wrote about the insidious development of colour-blind casting in an article titled ‘Fade to Black – The darkening of our screens and its part in the theft of our past and our future’.

The reason he had to use a pseudonym is that publicly expressing such views would instantly have ended his stage and screen career, since he would be damned as a ‘racist’.

Yet this week one of Britain’s most instantly recognisable Jewish actresses has expressed equivalent views, objecting to a non-Jewess – Helen Mirren – being cast as former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

The 1990s Disney version of fairytale ‘Cinderella’ was a prime example of ‘colour-blind’ casting’s absurdity, but didn’t offend Ms Lipman

Maureen Lipman has a long record of outspoken political activism in support of what she sees as Jewish and Zionist interests, and has regularly used newspaper columns for this purpose.  In 2005 she used her Guardian column to attack historian David Irving, and described H&D writer Lady Michèle Renouf as “a well-known racist”.

Is Ms Lipman now indulging in her own ‘racism’ at the expense of a fellow actress?

If so, she might be surprised by the stranger than fiction story of Helen Mirren’s gentile family and its curious connections with secret Jewish history in the mid-20th century.

Just a day after discovering a secret story of Zionist subversion that led to Jews being banned from recruitment to British intelligence, H&D’s Peter Rushton has been sent back to the archives to tell the true family story of Helen Mirren.

Click here to read – Spies, Crooks and Prime Ministers: strange Zionist connections in the family and career of Helen Mirren

H&D target of new legal crackdown

Actor Hugh Grant is the most famous public face of the lobby group Hacked Off, which is campaigning to extend a draft Online Safety law specifically to target H&D

The UK Government is preparing a new threat to online debate – extending the law to cover a wide range of material that until now has been perfectly acceptable.

And Heritage & Destiny is the top target of these new internet censors.

A document submitted to Parliament in September this year, but which we saw for the first time yesterday – quotes H&D as the main example of a website that is presently accepted by existing law as legitimate journalism – but which lawmakers now aim to restrict as ‘harmful’.

The new law intends not to criminalise us directly, but to force internet companies to ‘protect’ users from being offended by even ‘legal but harmful content’. These companies would face big fines under the new law if they failed to comply with instructions, for example to remove our content from their servers or remove us from search engine results.

The main examples of ‘harmful’ articles that in the document’s authors’ view should be restricted include our report on Henry Hafenmayer, the courageous German historical revisionist who died earlier this year at the tragically young age of 48.

H&D is targeted by planned changes to UK law, partly because of our obituary tribute to Henry Hafenmayer, seen here (above left) in July 2018 at the Munich trial of Alfred Schaefer (above centre), alongside Lady Michèle Renouf who faced similar charges until her legal victory in 2020.

Henry would no doubt be most amused to see that his campaigns for truth and justice continue to ‘threaten’ British parliamentarians even after his death, so that his work remains read posthumously in the corridors of UK power! He is most famous for his website Ende der Lüge (“End of the Lie”) and associated social media accounts: H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton and campaigner for freedom of research Lady Michèle Renouf attended his funeral in Berlin two months ago, a funeral which itself made headlines.

During the 2018 trial of revisionist filmmaker and video blogger Alfred Schaefer in Munich, Henry cooperated closely with Lady Renouf so that her daily updates from the trial could reach the Anglosphere via American Free Press. He was a regular speaker at demonstrations in support of German sovereignty and justice. Alongside the late Richard Edmonds, Henry had been due to speak at the Dresden commemoration in February 2018 before police closed down the event and arrested Lady Renouf: an extended legal process fought by German attorney and patriot Wolfram Nahrath ended in Lady Renouf’s victory over Dresden prosecutors who dropped the case days before it was to come to trial in October 2020.

Lady Michèle Renouf and H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton at the graveside of Henry Hafenmeyer after his funeral in Berlin on 8th October 2021

Now it seems that UK legislators are heading (via an indirect route) to the same destination as many European countries, including Germany: attempting to silence normal historical debate and rational argument by means of a legal cudgel. London’s perfidious method will be to avoid outright criminalisation – allowing them to pretend that they still allow free speech, while in practice seeking to gag online discussion.

Roy Greenslade – a veteran spokesman for IRA terrorism – was among the founders of Hacked Off, the group now lobbying the government for new laws against H&D. Greenslade was appointed Daily Mirror editor by the Mossad agent and crook Robert Maxwell

The influential lobby group Hacked Offfronted by actor Hugh Grant – has demanded that the government’s draft Online Safety Bill be amended so as to target us. Hacked Off‘s founders include the leftwing Jewish author Don Guttenplan, who attended and wrote a book about the court battle between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt, having been given special access by Irving during the trial; and former Daily Mirror editor Roy Greenslade, who wrote for many Fleet Street papers while also having a pseudonymous column for the Sinn Fein / IRA newspaper An Phoblacht. It’s quite an honour to be accused of ‘harmful extremism’ by a veteran spokesman for IRA terrorism.

Hacked Off told MPs that we “recently published a tribute to the Holocaust denier Henry Hafenmayer” but that under the draft bill, we “would likely gain an exemption” as a legitimate journalistic website. They also drew MPs’ attention to our US friends at National Vanguard, whom they similarly regard as a ‘harmful’ website that could be exempt from the draft bill.

No-one has ever suggested that the work of Henry Hafenmayer – or that of his comrades such as Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler and Ursula Haverbeck – has in any way infringed UK law.

But within weeks of the Hacked Off report, Nadine Dorries – newly appointed Culture & Media Minister in the UK’s Conservative government – agreed with the lobbyists that the draft bill had to be toughened. It is now expected to come before Parliament in March next year.

Nadine Dorries quaffs champagne after abandoning her constituents for a lucrative stint in the Australian jungle: such vulgar antics have won her promotion to the British Cabinet as ‘Culture Minister’ and she now presumes to introduce laws dictating the limits of decent journalism. Should we laugh, cry or call the Police?

Mrs Dorries is a notorious vulgarian who in 2012 accepted more than £20,000 to appear on the crass ‘reality TV show’ I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. Less than a decade ago, her behaviour was judged so reprehensible that she was briefly suspended from her party, and forced to apologise for a breach of parliamentary standards.

Yet in 2021 British politics has sunk so low that we must accept definitions of journalistic standards dictated by the likes of Mrs Dorries, a woman who abandoned her parliamentary duties so as to earn £20,000 eating an ostrich’s anus in the Australian jungle for the entertainment of television viewers.

For the time being – but who knows for how much longer – H&D readers can judge for themselves whether the articles highlighted in Hacked Off‘s complaint to Parliament are so ‘harmful’ that they justify new laws specially drafted to target us. The three articles they mention (and helpfully link from their document so that MPs and ministers can read them, even if they wish to prevent a wider public from doing so) are:

Henry Hafenmayer – champion of German freedom – dies aged 48

Two very different wings of the anti-Islam movement

and

Did ‘racism’ win on penalties?

Rest assured that whatever the legal obstacles, we will continue – as we have now for 105 issues of the magazine – to reflect a cross-section of 21st century racial nationalist opinion. We remain confident in the survival and eventual victory of our people and their traditional values.

Is Rangers F.C. Still a Loyalist Club?

Many (Glasgow) Rangers FC fans have been moaning on various internet social media forms (Facebook, Twitter, Telegram etc.) that Rangers are no longer a “Loyalist club” and have “sold-out to political correctness”, because all of their players “took the knee” in support of the extreme-left wing group Black Lives Matter (BLM) before their friendly game against Lyon, in France last week, with a couple of players even giving the Communist/Republican/Black Power salute!

Rangers players surrender to ‘Black Power’ before a recent friendly match against Lyon.

Rangers official Graham Provan, responded to the many supporters who disagreed with the clubs new liberal-PC stand by saying –

“So proud of Rangers for doing this and weeding out all the racist scum in our support. Why people think this is political is beyond me. I thought our support was better than that but clearly not. Thank you for doing this and standing up for what is right.”

However, those who know their “Rangers history” should remember that Rangers started to cut their ties with the Ulster Loyalist/Protestant cause way back in 1987, when the club turned down (for the first time) the Orange Order’s request to host its annual religious service at Ibrox. And it was then that steps began to remove the vendors of Loyalist/Orange literature, merchandise and paraphernalia from the areas directly around the Ibrox on match days. In fact, Rangers teams of the past had actually gone to Ulster, there to raise funds for the Orange Order!

Two years later in 1989, Rangers under new manager Graham Souness, signed Mo Johnston, a Catholic who had previously played for their arch-rivals Celtic) and as they say the rest is history.

Back in the May-June issue (#60) 2014 of Heritage and Destiny magazine we published an article/review written by Gil Caldwell of a book entitled We Don’t Do Walking Away, The Incredible Inside Story of a Season in the Third Division. For those interested in the debate as whether or not Rangers is still a “Loyalist club”, this article is well worth reading again.


Goodbye to Hello Hello?

Gil Caldwell reviews We Don’t Do Walking Away, The Incredible Inside Story of a Season in the Third Division – by Lisa Gray.
Published by Black and White Publishing Ltd, 2013. ISBN 978-1-84502-635-6 (Paperback). Available for £8.00 from Black and White Publishing, 29 Ocean Drive, Edinburgh, EH6 6JL or online at www.blackandwhitepublishing.com

The tale of Glasgow Rangers’ descent into the lowest, Third Division, of Scottish football and subsequent emergence, thereafter, is a fascinating and, often, an inspiring story. There are, actually, two stories here. One, with an appeal to those with legal and financial minds, is that of the team going into receivership and having to fend off a host of legal and monetary problems. These problems were not of the superficial sort – nor are they, as of yet, completely alleviated. There was a time that the “Gers” were in danger of ending their very existence, which had commenced in March of 1872. The other narrative focuses on the efforts of supporters, players and managers to keep Rangers’ successful identity afloat in the far from glamorous environs of lower tier football.

It is this latter saga which is the focus of Rangers FC: We Don’t Do Walking Away: The Incredible Inside Story of a Season in the Third Division. Essentially, this is the diary of a journalist who attended all the matches, home and away, league and cup, throughout the 2012-2013 season.

However, this is not simply the account of a football season, albeit with the twist of a high-level team competing at a level significantly below them. It is also of some socio-political and religious note. Rangers, have for most of their years, been associated with the Protestant faith and the political cause of Loyalism or Unionism, a cause which has spanned the past century with its focus moving from opposing Home Rule prior to the First World War to preserving the Protestant/British identity of Northern Ireland at present. Underlying all these disputes is the question of religious/cultural/national essence. Does one identify with Protestantism and hence with Britain or with Catholicism and therefore with the Republic of Ireland? Does one wave the Union Jack, the Red Hand of Ulster, St. Andrew’s Cross (with or without inserted Red Hand) or the Irish Republican tricolour?

The reader should keep in mind that the days when this was primarily a conflict of religious doctrine have largely faded. To the extent that Rangers and, their fierce opponents, Glasgow Celtic, represent communities, these are no longer, primarily, orthodox faith communities, professing divergent views of transubstantiation, Papal infallibility, salvation by faith or works or any of the questions, major or arcane, of Christian dogma, which animated Europeans since the Reformation. Rather, we must realize that this, and, to outsiders, somewhat peculiar conflict lies in the hazy realm where religious differences long ago created a gap which is today, almost uniformly, cultural and political. Of course, much of that culture divide makes reference to battles and ideas steeped in religion.

(A brief digression – To a small degree the formerly religious conflicts have been translated into a modern idiom. The covenantal aspects of much of Protestant thought yields a certain modern anti-authority vibe, which might manifest itself in disdain for the supposed subservient (to clergy) nature of Catholics. Many lay Protestants will offer as part of their anti-catholic clichés, their belief that Catholics obey Papal teaching in all areas of life whereas Prods think for themselves. Although an alluring mythology, the notion that Catholics, in other than microscopic numbers still submit to Roman teaching in areas such as birth control and the like is about as true as the notion that a robust Calvinism has nothing to command about bedroom behaviour.)

To those far removed from the history of these struggles, their current fierceness seems surprising and, at this late date in the history of European man, a bit anachronistic. As an American racialist once said to me, “Shouldn’t they all be more concerned with massive non-white immigration and political liberalism?”

In fact, if we may dwell for a moment on whether the feuding supporters really are of differing genetic stock it is worth noting that Scotland, Northern and Southern Ireland are all a part of the areas which at one time spoke a dialect of Gaelic. As to whether the invasion and conquest of what was to become England by Germanic and Scandinavian tribes (Angles, Saxon, Jutes, Frisians etc.) has yielded a somewhat different genetic source for the English is an intriguing question debated among geneticists. But leaving such scholarly matters to the academicians, for the layman, the inhabitants of the once United Kingdom seem largely the same racially, although greatly divided culturally and historically.

(One last point before we proceed, there was and is a school of “radical nationalism”, unable over the years to garner much support, which would like to focus on an Ulster culture which goes beyond the religious divide and seeks complete national independence for that troubled province.)

So, although to racialists of other lands, this conflict may seem like a “fine mess” (as Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan Laurel), to those involved it strikes to the core of their identity and collective memory. If, as racialists assert, that it is moral, healthy and, generally a good thing to have a group identity, then for Rangers/Celtic worlds the question of being a Billy or a Tim should always be part of who one is.

Over the decades the Rangers-Celtic rivalry, known as the “Old Firm” (a cynical view of the rivalry seeing it primarily as a business, dating back to the late nineteenth century) has featured not only a fierce clash of identities, spilling over, time and again, into low level violence, but also features the two best football clubs in Scotland by far. And, although a few of the other teams, of what is now the Scottish Premiership, have had their years or periods of success, at the end of the day, the highest level of competition has always been that of Rangers and Celtic. Each of these teams has had great success in Scotland in both league and Cup play and each has seen moments of glory in Europe. As part of the current self-perpetuating dominance of wealth in football, Rangers and Celtic have built upon their on the pitch talents to acquire the money needed to purchase enough skilled players to maintain their dominance.

Thus, it was a seismic shock when it was revealed in the spring of 2012 that Rangers was deeply in arrears and had engaged into several forms of financial deceit to keep themselves afloat. Faced with the prospect of quite literally going out of business, the players (well, more accurately some of the players), the fans and former Rangers star, now manager, Ally McCoist resolved that the team would not go under. As noted above there is a legal/financial story here as well, but our concern will be the soul of Rangers, not its pocketbook.

Loyalist banners have for generations been a traditional feature of Glasgow Rangers matches

When asked, shortly after the news of Rangers’ bankruptcy became public, as to whether he was going to resign, McCoist was quoted, in words that have since become a rallying cry, “This is my club, the same as it is for thousands and thousands of Rangers supporters, and we don’t do walking away.” So, Rangers’ supporters now had a phrase to add to WATP (“We Are the People”). In short order, a graying Rangers’ fan, surrounded by two stuffed bears clad in tartan light blue, would set the phrase to a lively tune on YouTube which tens of thousands would watch.

When the dust had cleared, before the 2012-2013 season had begun, the Scottish Football League members voted 25-5 to punish Rangers by dumping them into the Third Division. Whether this was an appropriate decision or simply the settling of some old scores is best left to future researchers, but the decision was final. In the coming football season, the once mighty Glasgow Rangers would be facing the likes of Annan, Elgin, Berwick (also “Rangers” by the way), Montrose, Stirling Albion. Of the ten teams on this level, only two had stadiums capable of seating over five thousand (Rangers being one of them) and five could not fit four thousand.

The season proved remarkable in several ways, all which are discussed in full in Gray’s book. First, Rangers’ supporters, in fact, did not walk away. They continued to fill Ibrox, as in years past, and did, indeed follow the squad “anywhere” and “everywhere”. Second, although the Third Division managements and their supporters proved most hospitable and savoured the experience, their players proved, almost always, surprisingly competitive. Eventually, Rangers triumphed over both strange environs and inspired opponents to finish first and secure promotion to Division Two. Third, this being the age of Political Terror and Thought Control, Rangers found themselves, even in the relative obscurity of Division Three, twice embroiled in accusations of “sectarianism” and “racism” by rival supporters and ownership, respectively.

We have now arrived at the second focus of this essay. Over almost every contemporary telling of Glasgow Rangers’ history hovers the ogre of the dreaded “sectarianism”. For example, even in the feel good, lavishly illustrated table top history of the team Rangers: The Official Illustrated History by Lindsay Herron, we read concerning Rangers and Celtic: “The religious divide gives the fixture a dimension that few intra-city rivalries have, but the hatred and bitterness it has engendered is undoubtedly unwanted in modern society.” (We ignore for now the implication that “pre-modern” society either would have been okay with these “hatreds” and, thus, evil or, alternatively, just not yet properly enlightened by the wisdom of modernity. This is a fundamental problem for those who accept the feminism, homophilia and multi racialism of the present as irrefutable dogma, what are they to think about their own immediate and long ago, ancestors? Were they all evil folks? Were all the ancestors of European Man, even as recently as WWII, evil chauvinists, homophobes and racists?) The trendy cliché of “sectarianism”, which lacks even a workable definition, as all similar words employed by the Political Terror that dominates the public forum today, is forever without clear explanation. What might it possibly mean? It is arguable that it is precisely the loose definition of these words of social control which enables our would-be Mind Controllers to use them whenever and wherever they wish. Nonetheless, despite the lack of a lucid definition, powerful forces, in media and government were and are on a mission to do away with the demon of “sectarianism”.

An early victory in the move to soften Rangers identity came in 1989 when the team, under new manager Graham Souness, signed Mo Johnston, a Catholic who had previously played for Celtic, to a contract. (Although, in point of fact, other Catholics, less overt in faith or stature, had played for the team, Johnston was the first public signing in recent memory.) For decades the club had an unwritten rule to employ only Protestants. This was now to be viewed as a great evil and its eradication as a long-awaited triumph for righteousness.

A Belfast mural commemorates the long traditional association between Glasgow Rangers FC and their Ulster brothers.

Yet, if we turn back the clock a bit further, one discovers that the move to sever the link of Rangers to its cultural and historical roots had begun before the Johnston signing. It was in 1987 that the club management turned down for the first time the Orange Order’s request to host its annual religious service at Ibrox. And it was then that steps began to remove the vendors of Orange literature and paraphernalia from the areas directly around the Ibrox. In its past, Rangers teams had actually gone to Ulster, there to raise funds for the Order.

In fact, at one of these benefit matches held on 10 May 1955 to help pay for improvements on the Sandy Row Orange Lodge in Belfast, the game program featured the following rhyme, from an anonymous “Orange Poet”.

To guard the faith which Luther preached
The rights which William won
The Orangeman relies upon
His Bible and his gun.

(We leave aside whether the “faith which Luther preached” would please the true Presbyterian believer of Scotland or Northern Ireland with his consubstantiationist view of the Eucharist. Whether to follow Zwingli or Calvin on this is a question which, one suspects, intrigues Rangers supporters far less than memories of the 1972 European Cup Winners Cup win.)

Similar ventures in poetry will not be printed in Gers’ programmes today, to be sure.

But was it really the case that the old Rangers identity was evil? Would it be considered a moral crime for a black or a Muslim to wish to employ his co-racialists or co-religionists? I am not an expert in this field, but my initial research has yielded that a Muslim is actually required to employ a Muslim, whenever possible, over a non-Muslim. Do not the same Mind Controllers, who spent decades defaming Rangers, encourage group identity for non-whites and Jews? In fact, the Orthodox Jewish law actually commands Jews to employ and patronize their fellow Jews. Is this wrong? May a man not grant first allegiance to family, kin, community, and ethnicity? One begins to think that it is only certain identities that must never be asserted.

Why can’t a team be part of a larger community? Why may a team not have a cultural identity?

Rangers today seek to render the soul of their supporters as antiseptic and arid as possible. The attempt to offer, over the tannoy, the meaningless Penny Arcade and the, more touching, but still identity-less, Blue Sea of Ibrox in place of many “forbidden” songs of the past is the culmination of this process. In fact, even the seemingly innocent Simply the Best (of Bonnie Tyler and later Tina Turner fame) has slowly been shelved due to the supporters’ proclivity to curse the IRA and the Pope via their own creative chorus response. Indeed, many of the most fervent of young Gers supporters these days seem content to wave vapid blue based flags as opposed to the Red Hand, St. Andrew’s Cross and Union Jacks which all flowed on terraces of the past.

(Let us pause here a moment to ponder the two just mentioned cursings. Is it wrong for a Protestant to wish the IRA ill? Would UEFA punish Israelis cursing Hamas? An organization, which has clearly espoused terror against innocents to achieve political power might seem to be a just recipient of its victims’ hatreds. As to the Pope, well, if one accepts the Reformation view of the Papacy as a monstrous error of doctrine which confused the Christianity of millions for over a thousand years, shouldn’t it be justly resented, especially when this errant dogma was often forced upon Europe by physical coercion? Granted that today’s Rome is a far cry from what once was, but must a people abandon its past pain just because political commissars demand it? More on this soon.)

In recent years, Rangers’ management, as much of the European world, has been called to task by our Mind Controllers. And, following in the footsteps of Mayor Lundy, they too have surrendered. Witness this subservient excerpt from the Wee Blue Book Season 06/07. “What the UEFA directives have done is to make us examine our own traditions and make us more determined to celebrate them in a . . . disciplined manner . . . Please support all the initiatives which celebrate our heritage and culture in a colorful and progressive way.” Specifically, the book demands “sing the songs in the Wee Blue Book” and “Display your legitimate flags and banners.”

The original Bridgeton Billy Boys

What exactly did UEFA say in 2006? Well, among other matters, they proclaimed, “The Billy Boys is associated with an attitude that is strongly sectarian and thus discriminatory” and “the singing of the Billy Boys is prohibited.” What is this horrible song with its “sectarian” and “discriminatory” words?

The music of this evil song was actually composed by an American, Henry Clay Work in 1865. He also wrote its lyrics. However, its title at that time was Marching Through Georgia, and it celebrated the barbarous march of Union General William Sherman across the southern state of Georgia in 1864 to capture the coastal city of Savannah. The pillaging of Sherman’s troops has long been regarded with shame on both sides of the Civil War, but in particular it was regarded with horror in the south. Nonetheless, in the revenge filled aftermath of that terrible war, it became quite popular in the north.

This is a frequent occurrence in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, as many songs of America’s first century, military, folk and religious have been freely shipped back and forth from the colonies to their Mother Country and vice versa. Not a surprising exchange as the early peoples of the United States were largely from UK stock.

I leave to Rangers historians, of greater acumen than I, to determine at what point the song became the Billy Boys. Common wisdom has it that the “Billy” referred to Billy Fullerton, leader of The Protestant Club in 1930s Glasgow and devoted, as its membership card had it, “to uphold King, Country and Constitution . . . and to defend other Protestants.” Glasgow had many clubs (some called them “street gangs” in that era) and the need to defend one’s co-religionists was no idle matter. Interestingly enough, Fullerton was also a member of Rotha Linton-Orman’s British Fascists during the same period. Others have tried to argue that the Billy means King William of Orange and it was just coincidental that Fullerton was also a “Billy”. Whatever the truth may be the song became a terrace favourite.

It actually has fairly long lyrics with references to the 12th July, “no surrender” and the like, but it is the rousing chorus which really caught on. Here are the offending lyrics:

Hello, Hello, we are the Billy Boys
Hello, hello you’ll know us by our noise
We’re up to our knees in Fenian blood
Surrender or you’ll die
For we are the Bridgeton Billy (alt. Derry) boys.

There are others forbidden tunes such as No Pope of Rome, and The Famine Song, but we will focus our attention on the above lyrics, seeing as almost all major Rangers football victories up till recent years have been accompanied by rousing renditions of this tune. (See the YouTube clip “Rangers Fans Incredible Support Rocks Old Hampden Park” for a brief clip of what used to be.) And now it has fallen as silent as did the Old Orange Flute once “Bob Williamson married Brigit McGinn”.

The legend of Billy Fullerton features on many items of Rangers memorabilia

Whether to demonize these anti Catholic manifestations of Rangers identity depends, at root, on what a people’s identity may rightfully be?

Let us turn to the Bible a bit on this subject. The ancient Hebrews were first exiled by the Babylonians in 587 BC. Thereafter, we read in the 137th Psalm, “O daughter of Babylon thou are to be destroyed. Happy shall be he that repayeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.” Or, ponder this from Psalm 79, which sounds positively sectarian: “Pour out Thy wrath upon the nations that know Thee not, And upon the Kingdoms that call not upon Thy name.” Similarly, we find in Lamentations 3:66 concerning the Gentiles who waged war against the Hebrews, “Pursue them with anger and destroy them under the Heavens of the Lord.”

Does the above mean that contemporary Hebrews, or Christians who accept the Old Testament, desire to literally smash all Babylonian children’s heads against rocks? No more so than did the thousands who used to assemble on the terraces at Ibrox or Hampden Park wished to actually stride through a deep stream of Catholic blood. And no more than did American abolitionists or 1960s black civil rights’ workers in America who sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic really want to “loosen” upon all white southerners “the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword” or desire that the Lord’s “heel” should “crush” them all.

These are songs of identities and causes, which in time of physical battle may be meant literally, but usually are simply the way a people recalls its buffetings, triumphs and hopes in history. To this day Jews recite the above quoted portions of the Bible at the Passover service. Does this mean that all Jews are vicious folk, chomping at the bit to launch wars of total destruction? Of course not. It means simply that they are a people with a long memory, who cherish their history and are not going to forget those who caused their suffering in the past.

Our Mind Controllers wish that all men (well, all European men, at least, others are called upon to have long and often bitter memories!) should forget their pasts and despise their ancestors. To the degree that they can commercialize football and reduce to the level of entertainment, they will have succeeded in their plan to destroy the faiths and identities of the heritages of Europe.

The struggle of Glasgow Rangers to climb out of the nether reaches of Scottish football and their supporters’ continued loyalty has been an inspiration around the world. It is a shame that this glorious saga must be hampered by censors and Mind Controllers. When and if the day comes that Europe casts off its chains, the walls of Ibrox and, yes, Parkhead as well, will be in full throttle celebrating their past, present and future. And, if the price to be paid for this was and will yet be the singing of tunes that once displeased our current commissars, then, well, so be it.

Gil Caldwell, Trenton, New Jersey

Editor’s Note: After this article was submitted, I checked Andrew Davies’s book City of Gangs: Glasgow and the Rise of the British Gangster, which seems to conclusively prove that “Billy” refers to King William and that the name was used before Billy Fullerton joined the group. The book has many pages on the subject of the original Billy Boys, including the fact that the song itself was actually sung in the streets of Glasgow as early as the 1920s.

RAF decides Nigger’s life didn’t matter

The gravestone of RAF dog ‘Nigger’ before it was censored by the RAF this week.

In the latest bizarre episode of politically-correct self-censorship, the Royal Air Force has altered a historic gravestone to remove the name of the most famous dog in RAF history.

Wing Commander Guy Gibson led 617 Squadron’s famous ‘Dam Busters’ raid on the night of 16th-17th May 1943, breaching two German dams with the revolutionary ‘bouncing bomb’ designed by Barnes Wallis.

The story was told in a 1955 film The Dam Busters, which also highlights the strange coincidence of Gibson’s dog – a black labrador retriever called ‘Nigger’ – being killed by a car on the very night of the raid. ‘Nigger’ is portrayed in several scenes during the film. Even by 1955, filmmakers didn’t perceive any problem with the dog’s name.

‘Nigger’ was buried at 617 Squadron’s base, RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire. This month the RAF removed his name from the gravestone.

The new censored gravestone with Nigger’s name removed

Politically correct historian James Holland praised the move: “I’m all for it. I think that is sensitive, it’s honouring the fact that the history is still there.”

Mr Holland argued that the name of Gibson’s dog should be airbrushed out of history because “it’s also impacting on how we regard Guy Gibson. Because the accusation is that Guy Gibson was a racist by having a dog called that name. Whereas actually he should be remembered for his heroism in what he achieved, which was absolutely remarkable.”

However local MP Sir Edward Leigh has written to the RAF questioning their decision: “It is perfectly understandable that this is a tricky matter to which there are no simple or easy solutions. I am, however, very fearful of our ability today to erase or re-write history.”

Wing Commander Guy Gibson (1918-1944)

This is yet another indication of Second World War history being turned into a set of fairy tales. The RAF and Mr Holland seem to believe it’s necessary to falsify the image of ‘our side’ so as to pretend that the war was about promoting modern liberal ‘anti-racist’ attitudes, whereas in fact almost all of the combatants in the Second World War – British, French, German, Italian, and above all American – had views that would be judged extremely ‘racist’ by the standards of 2020.

Babyish ‘sensitivity’ on racial matters has led almost all newspapers today either to avoid mentioning the word ‘Nigger’ or to write ‘N****R’ or to photoshop the picture of the previous gravestone.

Wing Commander Guy Gibson didn’t live to see the madness of multicultural, ‘anti-racist’ Britain. He was killed aged 26 on 19th September 1944, when his damaged plane crashed in Holland while returning from a bombing raid on Mönchengladbach.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers