Gross dishonesty of Murdoch press attack on British nationalist

We have become used to the gross dishonesty of the British press when attacking racial nationalists. A prize example is in today’s Sunday Times, which devotes half a page to the supposed ‘scandal’ that Mark Collett, a former BNP official now prominent in the ‘Alt Right’, has made money from YouTube videos.

The fact that these profits were entirely legal and normal makes no difference to Rupert Murdoch’s scandalmongers.

Typical of their sly distortion is a passage towards the end of the article:

He was tried over race-hate claims in 2006. He had reportedly said Asian men “are trying to destroy us” and had pledged to “show these ethnics the door”. The jury failed to reach a verdict.

Collett was later arrested for threatening to kill Griffin as part of a “failed coup” in 2010, but again walked free.

The truth is that the British state twice brought Mark Collett to trial at Leeds Crown Court under the race laws, in relation to secret recordings made with the help of BNP turncoat Andy Sykes for a BBC programme, The Secret Agent, but both prosecutions failed.

In the alleged ‘Griffin murder plot’ case in 2010, Mr Collett was never even charged. This arrest again stemmed from a secret recording: Mr Collett’s fellow BNP official David Hannam – a tragically weak and easily manipulated individual – recorded his telephone calls as part of an internal BNP feud. No charges were brought against Mr Collett because police forensic experts quickly discovered that the tapes had been edited, and Mr Hannam refused to provide the unedited originals.

(The reason being that the unedited originals revealed evidence of financial corruption inside Nick Griffin’s BNP.)

Veteran journalist admits immigration ‘taboo’

John Sergeant – one of Britain’s best known political journalists – has admitted that immigration was for decades treated as a ‘taboo’ subject by the journalistic establishment.

Sergeant worked for the BBC for thirty years, latterly as chief political correspondent from 1992 to 2000, and was political editor of their rival ITN from 2000 to 2002.

Writing in the Radio Times, he acknowledged:

“In my years [at] the BBC and ITV, I was fully aware of the immigration taboo. There is an old journalistic rule that says ‘if in doubt, leave it out’ and, looking back, we were guilty of not encouraging more serious debate on this subject.”

Sergeant added:

“At least we could try to reduce personal attacks on the integrity of those who put forward the case for a proper system of immigration control. It is not racist to talk openly about this subject.

“It is yet another difficult issue that we have to grapple with. And if we fail to do so, this country and our democracy will suffer for many years to come. But as with all serious political issues, brushing it under the carpet is also dangerous and it leads to widespread misunderstandings that we fail to address at our peril.”

Daily Mail witch hunt against Max Mosley

 

Today’s Daily Mail launches an extraordinary vendetta against Max Mosley, son of former Labour minister and British Union of Fascists founder Sir Oswald Mosley.

Mail editor Paul Dacre is one of many Fleet Street barons determined to undermine the new press regulator Impress, which was backed by Max Mosley after many press abuses uncovered by the Leveson Inquiry.

Hence this desperate effort to dig up anti-Mosley dirt from more than half a century ago.

The main focus of today’s story is Max Mosley’s role as election agent for Walter Hesketh, candidate for Union Movement at the Manchester Moss Side by-election in November 1961.  Some of the background was discussed two years ago in H&D‘s review of Max Mosley’s memoirs, in Issue 73.

The truth is that hostility to immigration was not confined to Mosleyites.  On October 12th 1961 for example, the Daily Mail itself approvingly quoted a speech to the Conservative Party Conference by Frank Taylor, Tory candidate at that same Manchester Moss Side by-election.  Mr Taylor (who won the by-election and remained Moss Side MP until 1974) said that at the start of the campaign he had met a “coloured man” in the constituency who had been unemployed for more than eight years: “Ladies and gentlemen, you and I are keeping him and his wife and about six delightful little piccaninnies I saw around him.”

Earlier the same year a Daily Mail headline had complained – “Still the West Indians pour in”; while a Daily Mail editorial in October 1961 (headlined ‘A Question of Colour’) would doubtless arouse Mr Dacre’s opprobrium today:
“In asking for a check to immigration most speakers [at the Tory conference] disavowed colour prejudice.  But, in fact, that is at the root of a demand which was not made until West Indians began pouring in.”

That Mail editorial continued: “To express dismay at this influx is legitimate.  There is a case for saying: ‘We believe coloured immigration lowers standards, depresses property values, and may lead to widespread miscegenation.’  But how many people are honest enough to say these things in public?  Not many at the Conservative Conference.”

Today the Mail professes to be shocked by the Mosleyite leaflet from 1961 – especially its warning of the health dangers posed by non-white immigration.  Yet in September 1961 the Daily Mail itself published a warning by a London health officer, Dr Herbert Chalke, under the headline: “Immigrants ‘cause new health problems’”. “Hygiene standards among West Indians, Nigerians, and other coloured immigrants are so low that new problems are being created for London’s health authorities.”

Even aside from the Mail‘s blatant hypocrisy, their obsessive hounding of Max Mosley raises questions as to where the paper draws the line: is no-one allowed to change their political views?  Would the newspaper have similarly pursued former Blackshirts such as comedian Spike Milligan; Dad’s Army actor Clive Dunn; eminent conductor Sir Reginald Goodall; or senior judge Sir Frederick Lawton?

And what about the ‘other Max’ – Labour Councillor Trevor Maxfield who has represented the Labour Party on Blackburn with Darwen Council for more than seven years, despite being a former branch organiser for the BNP?

 

 

Why not just buy the magazine and watch the YouTube videos? ITV spends fortune on pointless ‘infiltration’ of H&D meeting

Media witch hunt against ex-UKIP nationalist

Joe Chiffers was UKIP candidate for Liverpool Riverside at the last general election.  A few months ago, having become disillusioned with UKIP’s avoidance of fundamental issues, he quit and joined Jack Sen’s British Renaissance, where he was appointed party chairman for a few months earlier this year.

 

Now the Liverpool Echo and its national parent the Daily Mirror are trying to have Joe Chiffers sacked from his job with Liverpool solicitors MSB.  There is no suggestion that Mr Chiffers has behaved improperly in any way, or allowed his political views to influence his work to the detriment of clients.  It has long been accepted that solicitors or barristers will represent clients regardless of their political views, and many lawyers have held ‘extreme’ political views.

Indeed Frederick Lawton, a candidate for the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s who was directly involved in attempting to secure funding from the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist governments for BUF projects, later became (as Sir Frederick Lawton) one of Britain’s most senior judges, sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal until his retirement in 1986. It has often been more difficult for solicitors than for barristers to hold racial nationalist views, unless they are sole practitioners or in a partnership with fellow nationalists.  Examples of nationalist solicitors include the Leicestershire firm run by Anthony Reed Herbert and Philip Gegan of the NF and (original) BDP; the late Tessa Sempik (partner of former NF vice-chairman Richard Verrall); and English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook.

MSB Solicitors’ managing partner Paul Bibby told the Liverpool Echo that Mr Chiffers was facing disciplinary action, saying that MSB “pride ourselves on being a socially liberal firm and the views expressed are absolutely the antithesis of what we stand for at MSB”.

What does Mr Bibby’s “liberalism” amount to? Does it mean slavish adherence to a politically correct litmus test? Or does it mean liberal tolerance of diverse opinions?

 

 

Unsurprisingly the likes of Simon Fox (chief executive of the newspaper group pursuing Mr Chiffers) have no time for such fine British traditions.  The values of Mr Fox and his ilk are entirely alien, and reflected every day in their newspapers.

We hope that MSB Solicitors will reject this disgraceful attempt to impose political censorship and ideological uniformity on the legal profession.  Meanwhile Joe Chiffers has released a video response to his would-be persecutors.

Also worth watching is an earlier speech by Mr Chiffers delivered to a UKIP audience, on the origin and intent of the European Union (see below).

We shall inform H&D readers of further developments in this disturbing case.

 

 

London Forum hits the headlines!

The April meeting of the London Forum made headlines around the world, with a massive two page article in the Mail on Sunday headlined ‘Nazi Invasion of London’.

This was more than a little ironic, given the political proclivities of the Mail‘s owner Lord Rothermere during the National Socialist era.

If you want to see the reality behing the headlines, here are some videos of the speakers at the notorious meeting targeted by the Mail.

 

Daily Mail owner praises Hitler

Today’s Mail on Sunday makes a great fuss about the recent forum at a London hotel, where a range of speakers including American Prof. Kevin MacDonald addressed cultural and historical topics.

The Mail gets into a frenzy about this event, describing it as a “Nazi invasion of London.”

But what did the paper’s own proprietor Lord Rothermere think of the real National Socialists and their leader Adolf Hitler, whose 126th birthday falls tomorrow?

As early as September 1930, more than two years before Hitler came to power, Rothermere wrote an article in the Mail praising the National Socialist leader.  Under the headline ‘A Nation Reborn’, the press baron wrote:
“What are the sources of strength of a party which at the general election two years ago could win only 12 seats, but now, with 107, has become the second strongest in the Reichstag, and whose national poll has increased in the same time from 809,000 to 6,400,000?  Striking as these figures are, they stand for something far greater than political success.  They represent the rebirth of Germany as a nation.”

When Sir Oswald Mosley created the British Union of Fascists in 1932, Rothermere became one of his earliest and strongest supporters.  Though the Mail today referred to Mosley’s “hateful Blackshirt insignia”, at the time the paper’s line was very different.  Rothermere wrote an article for his paper in 1934 under the headline ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’

Rothermere (great-grandfather of the present Lord who is still chairman of the newspaper) visited Hitler in January 1937.  The führer‘s press chief Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary afterwards:
“Rothermere pays me great compliments.  Enquires in detail about German press policy.  Strongly anti-Jewish.”

Farage trousers £1 million from Jewish pornographer

This evening the Daily Express proudly announced that its owner Richard Desmond had donated a further £1 million to UKIP, following a £300,000 donation from Desmond to the party at the end of last year.  The Express tycoon was a major donor to Tony Blair’s Labour party fifteen years ago, but fell out with Labour in 2004.

The article is accompanied by photographs of Farage grovelling in Desmond’s office.  The UKIP leader said:

“Richard is a self-made man with the courage of his convictions.  I know there are a lot more people out there who agree in private but I hope this public gesture encourages others to follow his example.”

Desmond is known for his Europhobia – he once goosestepped around a boardroom and ranted that all Germans were Nazis, during a meeting with executives from the Daily Telegraph.

But how exactly did this “self-made man” acquire his fortune?

After leaving school at 15, Desmond made his first money through contacts in the music industry, and his first ventures into publishing were also connected to jazz and pop.

In 1983 he acquired the UK licence for the American porn magazine Penthouse and soon expanded into a range of similar publications, many catering for somewhat specialist tastes such as Asian Babes.  Desmond’s empire soon encompassed telephone chat lines, websites and cable/satellite TV channels such as Television X, which he promoted with the slogan: “Television X offers the best in British porn”.

Several Jewish community leaders were nervous when Richard Desmond was appointed head of the Jewish charity Norwood in 2006.  The Jewish Chronicle ran a front page story headlined ‘Pornographer’s charity post sparks protests’, and criticised the appointment in its editorial.  (Notably neither of these items is still online, and by 2012 the JC had made its peace with Desmond, publishing a long feature about his emotional family visit to Auschwitz.)

Desmond’s friends rallied round.  Cyril Paskin – former ‘field commander’ of the ultra-violent Jewish 62 Group – was especially vocal:
“It’s diabolical. Richard is a very, very good man. He is a giving person in every respect – not just money, but his time too. He has a heart of gold. He should be a Sir. We don’t need other Jews running him down.”

Paskin’s former 62 Group bagman Gerald Ronson (founder of the Community Security Trust) also weighed in to support the porn baron:
“I speak as a friend and supporter of Richard. Every time I’ve ever asked him for anything he’s always given. He’s a talented and hardworking man who devotes most of his free time to charity. He gives equally to Jewish and non-Jewish causes. He’s a good person – and so is his wife Janet who’s a wonderful influence on him. I have no doubt that, with all his charity work, it won’t be very long before he sets up his own charitable foundation and becomes the biggest giver in the UK.”

He’s certainly the biggest giver now – to UKIP’s general election campaign!

UKIP supporters of a prudish disposition would be advised to look away now…

In 2009 two of their latest million-pound donor’s companies were fined for extreme pornographic offences against the broadcast code.

The broadcasting regulator Ofcom said that the £25,000 fine imposed on RHF Productions was for daytime promotions for two websites containing “extremely sexually explicit material” that could be viewed by consumers without any need for registration or age verification.

“Broadcasters must ensure that they do not promote websites giving access to free-to-view sexually explicit material without any protections,” said Ofcom in its ruling. “This is particularly important when such references may be seen by children.”

Meanwhile another Desmond company Portland TV was fined £27,500 for broadcasting hardcore pornography on a show entitled Bathroom Bitches.  The details of the Ofcom judgment are too explicit for us to publish on this website.  But clearly Nigel Farage has no qualms about his party’s latest donor.

Research article on MH 17

The Heritage and Destiny website today publishes a guest article by Ivan Winters, exploring some of the facts behind the shooting down of the airliner MH 17, widely blamed (indirectly) on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Click here to read this exploration of MH 17 – Some Facts!

 

MH 17: Some facts!

A guest article by Ivan Winters

Rather like my previous article re the Ukrainian protests and the overthrow of a democratically elected President (see H&D Issue 60) all I intend to do in this article is to provide a ‘primer’, a starting point for the reader to launch their own enquiries and lay to rest some of the more idiotic narratives going around. I made comments in the last article about the poor quality of Western media coverage of the situation during the ‘Maidan protests’ and the need to use alternative sources. It has got even worse during this incident. I cited Al Jazeera (AJ) and Russia Today (RT) as two useful sources in my previous article although I did caution that RT is of course putting the Russian regimes spin on things. RT coverage has deteriorated with the network putting forward various barely credible alleged versions of ‘events’ all of which conveniently blame the ‘Ukraine’ or ‘the West’. Most of these claims can be easily debunked by a little research. The next day forgetting the previous day’s narrative which has been debunked RT comes out with another version of events!! In fact at least one RT journalist, Sara Firth, resigned over RT’s handling of the issue. The only station that has remained credible is AJ but AJ has not been giving much airtime to the MH17 incident. This is because AJ’s ‘heroes’ in Gaza, Hamas, have been having a noisy neighbourhood spat with Israel and AJ is giving that a lot of airtime.

A further problem is that among the various claims and counterclaims made by both parties observers are effectively told by both sides that they must take everything ‘on trust’ with little of the primary evidence being made available. We went to war in Iraq on the basis of a ‘dodgy dossier’ now we are not even being allowed to see the dossier merely listen to each sides ‘interpretation’ of their alleged evidence. This includes the fact that the US is known to have electronic intelligence aircraft (ELINT) and satellites monitoring Eastern Ukraine. Both AJ and RT have shown pictures of State Department Press conferences in Washington where the spokeswoman has refused to give any primary evidence from these sources just ‘interpretation’. The evidence given has included such things as pictures from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) allegedly showing a Russian SA-11 rocket launcher being transported on a civilian low loader and photographed allegedly passing through a town close to the Russian border, Krasnodon (Pic 1).

The photo has now been taken down from the SBU site but is still quoted by Western sources to prove Russian complicity in this incident. Why has it been taken down. Because some Western sources working on the Internet did what Western media failed to do – check out the pictures. Looking at Pic 1 despite the cruddy resolution clearly visible over the top of the low loader are some trolley bus wires and to the left is the edge of a large roadside advertising hoarding. The border town where this is alleged to have been photographed has a trolley bus system but nothing else fits the photo! In fact some detective work suggests this was taken some distance from the border on the outskirts of Luhansk (Pic 2).

Just too add to the disinformation the Russians used the same photo (Pic 1) and said it was taken in the city of Krasnoarmeysk a city controlled by the Ukrainian Army since May 11th . But Krasnoarmeysk has no trolley bus system. These discrepancies are analysed further here. A further light is thrown on the situation because as I mentioned above the missile launcher was being transported on a civilian low loader. If, as claimed by the Ukrainians this was a Russian supplied system that is rather odd as the Russians have a range of military tractor/trailer units to transport their systems on. Use of a civilian low loader suggests an ad hoc arrangement, the sort of thing that could well be improvised by civilian based separatists. In fact ‘Paris Match’ magazine did something which major news sources had failed to do. A phone number can be seen on the low loader in some photos. They dialled it ! The owner of the haulage yard told them it had been stolen ‘earlier this month’.

Talking of military and civilian low loaders leads to another confusing report which covers in detail. This is a report of a tarpaulin covered missile launcher on a military low loader filmed on a ‘dashboard camera’ a couple of kilometres inside the Russian border (Pic 3). The missile unit was originally identified as a SA-11, the type of missile most sources accept was fired at MH-17. A closer look at it by Dr Richard North noticed that not only was it on a military low loader it appeared to be longer, with a longer overhang over the hull of the launcher and (just visible under the tarpaulin) more track wheels (7 not 6). It appears to be a SA-12 a different missile launcher with a longer range and greater altitude than the SA-11. In his research Dr Richard North even found a company in New Orleans, USA, that makes diecast models of the SA-12 launcher and military low loader! Could the Russians have shot down MH-17 with a SA-12 from their side of the border and left it to ‘separatists’ with the shorter range SA-11 in the Ukraine to claim the ‘credit’ (or catch the blame !)? The SA-12 has totally different radars from the SA-11 and it is almost certain US ELINT aircraft would have detected the aircraft was being tracked by the ‘wrong radar’. (Rather than bore readers witless if you want more read the long, technical articles, on SA-11 and SA-12 on Wikipedia).

What we have after this long convoluted discussion and various attempts to muddy the waters mainly by Ukrainian and Western sources is that it appears MH-17 was shot down by a SA-11 missile fired from a separatist controlled area of the Eastern Ukraine. How did they get the launcher? Some of the pictures show a number painted on the side of the launcher ‘312’. This matches with pictures on a Facebook page relating to the soldiers in a Ukrainian air defence unit. A picture from early this year, before the outbreak of the ‘separatist uprising’, shows a launcher numbered 312 at the unit base in Donetsk. This base was stormed by the separatists at the beginning of the uprising and a lot of the equipment seized. The Ukrainians claim the missile launchers seized were ‘non-operational’ but they would say that to hide their embarrassment at a lot of high value equipment being seized wouldn’t they ? Some of the separatist commanders in various interviews (rants!) have claimed that ‘civil organisations’ in Russia gave them help fixing ‘non-operational’ equipment they seized. This could be true or it could be a ploy by the separatist leaders to make it appear they have more support than they really have to impress the local East Ukrainian population.

One final factor that is not being mentioned by the Western Press. On July 14th a Ukrainian Antonov An-26 transport was shot down over the separatist controlled region at 21000ft. The altitude of this aircraft meant that it was too high to have been shot down by a shoulder fired missile. A SA-11 or similar system was obviously deployed in the region. Three days later MH-17 was shot down. The question that is being asked is why didn’t the Ukrainian and/or US governments order international air traffic organisations to close the air zone over the Eastern Ukraine to civilian flights as a high altitude capable missile system was deployed in the area? As an aside according to the ‘Wikipedia’ entry for the SA-11M1 (the type used in the Ukraine) there was an old technology 1980’s IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system fitted but I note that the citation for this item (citation ‘8’) is a duff link ! Has their been some ‘friendly editing’ of the entry ? How much skill does the crew need to have to use the IFF (if it exists) competently? As a matter of fact by July 17th some airlines were taking a longer route over the Black Sea to avoid this war zone. Did the Ukrainian government desperate for foreign currency keep routing flights over the area so they could charge the ‘transit fees’ to airlines? Or did the Ukrainian and/or US governments hope for an ‘own goal’ by the separatist manned missile launcher crew which the Western governments could then try to link President Putin too?

I mentioned above the Western governments tactic of blaming everything on ‘Putin’ and refusing to show any of their alleged ‘primary evidence’. The Ukrainian attempts to support the West in this have consisted of dodgy photos which they have had to take down when they are challenged. I mentioned earlier the ‘dodgy dossier’ in Iraq but in 2003 some Western media questioned the accuracy of that dossier. Even the BBC did so with it’s then reporter, the excellent Andrew Gilligan. Now we have a celebrity magazine Paris Match doing more research than the major news organisations like the BBC!  A researcher working with a laptop in Wibsey, South Bradford is doing major research on the subject in between his normal ‘duties’ such as putting together anti-EU briefings. I mentioned in my previous article the work that can be done using ‘alternative media’ compared to the traditional news sources but it is strange (or deliberate ?) that the traditional media are not making efforts to improve the quality of their fact finding. They are, by their lack of efforts to research on these major issues, destroying their own credibility and handing their audiences over to the alternative media. I will close with one excellent quote. Former US Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger may be 90 but he has still got all his marbles: ‘Demonizing Vladimir Putin does not make a Foreign Policy!’

 

Next Page »