Boxing promoters aid anti-White racial propaganda war

Even more than Hollywood, the cynical world of professional boxing has this weekend displayed subversive racial propaganda at its worst.

Promotional material for last night’s heavyweight bout at London’s O2 Arena showed a calm and civilised looking negro, facing a snarling, posturing White barbarian.

The ‘British’ challenger (in fact of mainly Nigerian ancestry, mixed with a bit of Irish on his father’s side) was Anthony Joshua (full name Anthony Oluwafemi Olaseni Joshua).

Despite being awarded the OBE four years ago – i.e. he is an ‘Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire’ – Joshua has taken several opportunities to show his contempt for the White civilization that created the multi-millionaire lifestyle he now enjoys.

In 2017 Joshua used Instagram to preach about “the superior black race”. Had anyone written about “the superior White race” on Instagram their account would swiftly be terminated, their career would be over, and they would probably be arrested.

Joshua then used his Snapchat account to praise the genocidal, anti-White, Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

And in 2020 he addressed a “Black Lives Matter” rally, calling on his fellow blacks to discriminate against White businesses.

Joshua has been in trouble with the law more than once. Aged 19 (and already starting out as an amateur boxer) he spent two weeks in prison on remand for violent offences, and as a condition of his release was forced to wear an electronic tag for a year.

Then in 2011 he was convicted of possessing cannabis with intent to supply, and was very lucky to escape a prison sentence: instead he was made to do 100 hours of community service work.

Yet White British boxing fans are either remarkably forgiving or masochistic. They flock to support this black racist criminal.

And boxing promoters cynically produced posters that presented Joshua as ‘cool’ and civilized, while his opponent appears to be a crazy thug.

In reality Robert Helenius (a Finn based in Sweden) has no criminal record and (unlike Joshua) no record of ‘racism’. His image on the posters was simply playacting, living up to the image the promoters wanted.

Those promoters also knew that Helenius (who is 39 years old, at the end of his career, and only fighting at this level because a last minute replacement was needed) was almost certain to lose to Joshua. And as expected, Joshua knocked out Helenius in the 7th round.

The promoters had the result they wanted: Aryan barbarian given a beating by ‘cool’ negro.

Sadly, very many racial nationalists are just as keen to live up to the ‘barbaric’ image that fits our enemies’ script.

The popular image of a racial nationalist in 2023 is of a lout – in American terms a ‘redneck’ – his face contorted with hatred as he impotently rails against ‘superior’ liberals and non-Whites. In the worst examples, hooligans on anti-Muslim demonstrations are photographed urinating on one of Britain’s most historic buildings, Westminster Abbey, because they have consumed so many cans of lager on the way to the demonstration that they are unable to control themselves.

The truth of course is that racial nationalists are the defenders of civilization. Just as German forces (assisted by brave volunteers from many other countries, including Spain, France, Belgium, Ukraine, and the Baltic states) defended Europe’s front line against Stalin’s semi-Asiatic barbarians in 1945, racial nationalists today fight a political and cultural war (and sometimes a literal one) against various forms of anti-European barbarism.

Yet we allow ourselves to be portrayed as though we are the barbarians. Robert Helenius was innocently acting that role for the cameras, as part of the show business side of his sport. As politically aware racial nationalists, we have no such excuses and should have more sense.

Gary Lineker and immigration hypocrisy

This weekend the British government, our national broadcaster, and our national sport have been caught up in a hypocritical circus over immigration. Television’s best known sports programme – Match of the Day – and many other football programmes have been severely disrupted.

Gary Lineker, the former England international who has presented Match of the Day since 1999, has been increasingly vocal in his left-liberal political views during recent years, especially regarding ‘racism’ and immigration.

In effect, Lineker is only taking to its logical conclusion an obsession with ‘anti-racism’ that has been forced on football. Ever since the start of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaigns, paying tribute to the black American criminal George Floyd, Premiership football teams (and especially the England team) have religiously ‘taken the knee’.

So it probably seemed to Lineker that he was merely being consistent when he criticised the British government’s new, supposedly ‘tough’, immigration policy. In doing so he made an obligatory reference to ‘1930s Germany’. (No one imagines that Lineker, who left school at 16 and has shown no sign of being especially studious since then, has any advanced knowledge of Third Reich history! He was merely parroting the usual left-liberal slogans.)

What Lineker didn’t realise is that the UK’s Tory government under Rishi Sunak – son of immigrants and married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – aims to play its usual hypocritical games over immigration. These games have been typical of the Conservative Party ever since its then leader Margaret Thatcher played a con trick on British voters in January 1978, hinting that she shared their concerns about our nation being “swamped” by immigrants.

Today’s Tories aim to be ‘anti-racist’ in practice – presiding over an increasingly emasculated police force, housing illegal immigrants in hotels across the UK at public expense, and extending the definition of ‘harmful extremism’ and even ‘terrorism’ so as to harass active patriots – but also seek to deploy ‘dog whistle’ tactics by sending signals to racially concerned voters that really they are on their side (or at any rate are more pro-White than the Labour Party).

It seems odd to describe Lineker – one of the country’s best paid broadcasters – as a victim: but to an extent he has at least tried to be consistent, and as a man of limited education he is probably genuinely mystified by the hypocrisy of his employers and the governing party.

Most H&D readers are likely to agree that Lineker is entitled to his own opinions. We would not object to people with whom we happen to disagree politically, being allowed to present sports programmes – provided that this latitude is applied consistently. If someone with strong, publicly-expressed, pro-immigration views is allowed to present Match of the Day, then the same should apply to those who express strong anti-immigration views.

Sadly this is not the case. Anyone of even mildly nationalist views faces a witchhunt to remove them from public life. This weekend The Times – once the world’s most respected newspaper – harassed a prominent businessman because of views expressed by his son, not even by the businessman himself! To be vocally anti-immigration is to risk not only demonisation and marginalisation, but even criminalisation.

Polling evidence on racial questions is very difficult to analyse, because much depends on how the questions are phrased, and the general public are sometimes unwilling to associate publicly with any position that is deemed ‘extreme’.

But there is increasing evidence that large numbers of voters have had enough. If and when racial nationalists can get their act together, it seems clear that there is huge potential support for a movement of national resistance, whether at the ballot box or on the streets. H&D looks forward to reporting on the growth of this national resistance in the coming weeks and months.

Home Secretary plays the ‘Holocaust’ card in migrant row

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been the first to play the victim card in an ongoing row with the BBC over the UK government’s immigration policy.

Speaking to Nick Robinson’s podcast Political Thinking this morning, Braverman (who is herself a Buddhist of Goanese ancestry) said that she had been “personally offended” by the comments of Gary Lineker, the former England footballer who has been presenter of Match of the Day for more than twenty years.

Braverman added:
“My husband is Jewish, my children are therefore directly descendant from people who were murdered in gas chambers during the Holocaust. And my husband’s family is very – feels very – keenly the impact of the Holocaust, actually.”

Lineker, one of the highest-paid broadcasters in Britain, has repeatedly expressed politically-correct views on Twitter and recently criticised the government’s immigration policies. Replying to an opponent this week, Lineker tweeted:
“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

Predictably the row has degenerated into both sides playing the ‘nazi’ card, and Braverman clearly feels that her tangential connection to the ‘Holocaust’ gives her some advantage in the victim stakes.

Lineker’s comments were stupid and should be criticised for their foolishness, not because they might offend someone married to a Jew.

The underlying point of course is that St Gary is another symptom of the crude political correctness that can be expected from the football industry after several decades of relentless ‘anti-racist’ indoctrination.

In earlier generations, ‘racism’ when expressed by people within football was inevitably crudified, and so is ‘anti-racism’. No big deal either way, and not grounds for sacking – provided that (within reason) football commentators are also allowed to express anti-immigration sentiments. Provided it is not obligatory to kneel in memory of black criminal George Floyd, and provided it is permissible for BBC broadcasters to assert that White Lives Matter, none of us should be too worried about Lineker and his ilk expressing their opinions.

The problem is that only one side of the political fence is considered acceptable.

Perhaps the case should be put to Mr Lineker in those terms, and that would I think silence him rather more effectively than attempts at straightforward censorship!

Isabel Peralta confronts media liars in Madrid court

Today the 19-year-old Isabel Peralta confronted the professional liars of the international media.

In the Court at Plaza Castilla, Madrid, Isabel began an action against the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Jerusalem Post and others who have conducted a campaign of defamation against her for the past year.

This courageous and intelligent comrade reports from outside the courtroom in the video below. As you will see, the cowardly media liars failed to attend court today and the case proceeds.

H&D readers will hear more from Isabel in future editions of our magazine.

Moscow’s “fake factory” – 2022 version derided by Western media; 1945 version enshrined in Western law

Analysis of recent Russian propaganda in the Ukraine shows that films purporting to show Ukrainian ‘saboteurs’ were actually made by a Russian ‘fake factory’.

The anti-Putin investigative journalists at Bellingcat point out: “Russia has a long record of doing this. It isn’t surprising.”

What is surprising is that Western countries themselves have built an entire structure of debate-denying laws, on the foundations of an earlier generation of Moscow “fake factories” and “lie machines”.

Right now for example, 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck in Germany, and the Spanish author, publisher and bookseller Pedro Varela, are facing criminal proceedings and jail sentences for raising forbidden questions about the alleged extermination of six million Jews and the unique mass-murder weapon of the homicidal gas chamber.

Soviet ‘investigators’ pioneered their technique of ‘Holocaust history’ at the Majdanek camp in the summer of 1944, and the same year ‘investigated’ the Janowska camp near the old Habsburg city of Lemberg (later Lvov or Lviv). The foundations of Auschwitz history were laid in early 1945 by a similar Soviet ‘investigatory commission’. The entire story was presented by the Soviet prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials, whose verdict it is forbidden to question in many European countries.

While the liberal media’s renewed interest in Moscow propaganda lies lead them to re-examine ‘Holocaust’ history? Or even to accept that courts should be prepared to hear evidence on such matters, rather than moving straight to conviction of ‘Holocaust deniers’ without even allowing evidence to be submitted, as for example is frequently the case in today’s German courts?

Sky Sports News fires its White, male presenters

H&D readers might tend to assume that the BBC is the pinnacle of political correctness – not only in its actual political coverage but in drama, sport, etc.

Yet during the last few days its rival Sky Sports News has carried out what appears to be a racial and gender based purge of its presenters on the flagship show Soccer Saturday, aiming to create a more ‘diverse’ on-screen image.

Three longstanding presenters – all famous veteran footballers – were sacked on Tuesday:

• Matt Le Tissier, one of the most technically gifted English players of all time, who played 443 matches for Southampton from 1986 to 2002 and won eight England caps. Le Tissier is known to be politically conservative and caused controversy earlier this year when he refused to wear a ‘Black Lives Matter’ badge on screen because of the group’s ‘far left’ ideology.
• Phil Thompson, former captain of Liverpool and England whose honours include seven League champions’ medals and three European Cups. Thompson has been a Sky Sports presenter for 22 years.
• Charlie Nicholas, striker for clubs including Celtic and Arsenal, who won 20 caps for Scotland, for whom he played at the 1986 World Cup. Twice top scorer in Scottish football.

Soccer Saturday anchorman Jeff Stelling wrote on Twitter about his regret at the purge: “One of my saddest days ever at Sky Sports with the departure of three of my best mates. They have been part of a team that for me was the best.”

Also purged was the main presenter of Sky’s Football League coverage, former Charlton and Chelsea defender Scott Minto – yet another White male presenter to be removed from the channel.

Ironically this week also saw the Liberal Democrats elect a new leader. One might expect the Lib Dems to be more politically correct than Sky Sports, but the opposite proved true this week. The Lib Dems elected Sir Ed Davey as their new leader, rather than the half-Palestinian, self-described ‘pansexual’ Layla Moran.

Sir Ed – a 54-year old White heterosexual male – would have no chance of being recruited by a British sports broadcaster in 2020.

UPDATE – September 2020: Not to be outdone by Sky in the political correctness stakes, the BBC has now dismissed Sue Barker, former tennis star and presenter of its popular quiz show A Question of Sport as well as both of the show’s team captains, former England rugby captain Matt Dawson and veteran spin bowler Phil Tufnell. We can assume that at least two of these three vacancies will be filled by non-Whites as the diversity drive continues.

A predictable disaster: but don’t let it obscure the truth

Today’s counter-demonstration in Central London by “football lads” seeking to defend British heritage against the violent “Black Lives Matter” and “antifa” mobs, should have been a victory celebration.

The anti-British rabble had cancelled their own event, no doubt fearing they would come off worse in any confrontation with the “far right”. Late last night, even the most violent hard core of “London Antifa” gave up and advised their followers not to be in Whitehall today – causing some excellent disputes among their own side about lack of planning.

This was a moment calling for leadership and discipline. The “right-wing” demonstrators today should have been friendly and cooperative with the police. There should have been a couple of speeches celebrating victory and warning BLM and “antifa” that any further nonsense from them would again be confronted and defeated.

Then the troops could disperse, vowing to meet at a hostelry for further celebrations as soon as such venues reopen.

Unfortunately a large part of the so-called “far right'” has no leadership worthy of the name and no discipline, just as it has no ideological backbone. Though there were many hundreds of good, decent patriots in Whitehall today, they aren’t the ones who will be featured by the media.

As was sadly predictable, a large percentage of the “demonstrators” supposedly on our “own” side were already incapably drunk before the event began, and like children were unable to control their bladders. Whitehall became an ocean of urine, and one so-called “patriot” was photographed micturating against the memorial to murdered police officer Keith Palmer, killed by a terrorist in 2017.

In other words an absolute gift to our anti-British media, who can now conveniently forget the bigger picture and report on the “far right” literally p*****g on our heritage.

Our disgust at this pathetic display shouldn’t however blind us to the bigger picture. Once this weekend’s headlines have faded, we shall still be confronted by alien mobs determined to tear down monuments across our country and across the White world, so as to impose their own fake history and their own multiracial nightmare.

And once their understandable disgust at the lagered-up yobs purporting to represent Britain has faded, our fellow countrymen will still be on our side rather than on the side of the culture-distorters and the nation-wreckers.

The challenge will be how to mobilise that support. It should now be clear that the likes of “Tommy Robinson” and Paul Golding have nothing to offer the nationalist movement that will rise in post-Corona Britain.

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?

 

 

Next Page »