The limits of ‘free speech’ – PA purged from Twitter (again)

Many nationalists (including H&D) hoped that Elon Musk was being sincere when he promised that his takeover of Twitter would lead to a new approach in favour of ‘free debate’.

Unfortunately, recent decisions show that (after a brief experiment) it’s back to business as usual.

Last night several accounts associated with Patriotic Alternative – including the main PA account as well as Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Sam Melia, and Merseyside activist James Costello – were simultaneously banned for “hateful conduct”.

No one has yet quoted exactly what was posted to Twitter by PA that constituted “hateful conduct”. It seems likely that Twitter has simply panicked in response to a bullying campaign by the far left and the usual interest groups, whose policy on these matters dates back to their successful pressure on the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror during the 1930s to abandon their support for Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

This pressure was primarily via an advertising boycott, notably by large Jewish businesses such as the Lyons Corner Houses, a very well-known chain of tea shops owned by Isidore Salmon.

How should nationalists respond to the latest Twitter bans?

First of all, as in the case of Donald Trump, the message should be: “put not your trust in tycoons”. Billionaires (almost by definition) are not going to be on the side of racial nationalism, even though they might sometimes strike poses that give that impression.

Second, avoid defeatism. There is no “all powerful conspiracy” operating against us. Instead there are many attempts to conspire against us, some more successful than others and some contradicting each other, but all of them ultimately doomed to failure because we stand for truth and civilization.

The British people and other White European peoples are waking up to the need to defend their race and culture. No ban or boycott is going to change that fact. H&D looks forward to Patriotic Alternative continuing to make gigantic contributions to the White European renaissance.

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.

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Journalists launch campaign to challenge BNP in run-up to election

If ever you needed proof of media bias (oh, and how Amnesty International doesn’t do what it’s constitution states it exists to do, namely: “to protect people wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied.”)…

Lefty Journalists’ organisation, 9 Feb 2010: Campaigning journalists and media workers are to launch EXPOSE, a campaign aimed at “revealing the undemocratic and racist nature” of the British National Party.

The new campaign will tackle the BNP’s “attempts to construct a respectable public image” and support media workers who refuse to work on uncritical programmes or material [emphasis added], the group announced today.

EXPOSE aims to brief reporters and news editors to help them challenge the BNP’s statements and spokespersons in the run-up to the UK election, the campaigners said.

A launch rally at the Amnesty UK headquarters in London on 23 February…

http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/537506.php? (Copy/paste link for full article, external site)

Bromley: Four in court over Richard Price murder

Another vicious asian-on-white murder which goes unreported in the national ‘news’papers.

Bromley News Shopper, 04 Nov 2009: Four men have appeared in court accused of murdering Richard Price.

Murat Karabeyaz, aged 24, of Burford Road, Catford; Michael Liddell, aged 19, from Ealing; Param-Jit Theara, aged 24, of Ross Way, Eltham; and Jagtar Johal, aged 36, of Blyth Road, Bromley, appeared at Bromley Magistrates’ Court this morning (November 4) charged with murder.

The men, dressed in white T-shirts and flanked by six security guards, spoke only to confirm their names and sat with their heads bowed throughout the short hearing.

The public gallery was filled with the friends and family of Mr Price who died yesterday morning (November 3) in hospital.

Link to full article [external site]