Berlin march calls for release of documents on Rudolf Hess murder

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton addressed a rally in Berlin on Saturday 19th August, calling for the release of official British documents reporting on the death of Rudolf Hess, thirty years ago this week.

More than 1,000 demonstrators marched in the Spandau district of Berlin, close to the site of the infamous prison where Hess was incarcerated until his death aged 93 in 1987. By then he had been in Allied prisons since 1941, when he flew to Scotland in an effort to negotiate peace between Britain and Germany.

The memorial stone at the spot where Rudolf Hess’s plane crash-landed in 1941. This stone was erected by British nationalists Tom Graham, Wallace Wears and Colin Jordan, but was later smashed by communists.

Officially this death was recorded as a suicide: despite Hess’s advanced age and physical infirmity, he was ruled to have hanged himself from a window latch with an electrical cord. His family commissioned independent medical advice which drew attention to evidence that Hess had been murdered. (British historian David Irving has since revealed a conversation with the Berlin prosecutor Detlev Mehis, who admitted that the murderer was U.S. serviceman Tony Jordan.)

Two Foreign Office files containing the official investigation of Hess’s death by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch – FCO 161/69 and FCO 161/70 – remain secret, under a regulation normally used for sensitive intelligence material.

Marchers this weekend came from many parts of Germany and included representatives of numerous parties and groups.  The event was chaired by the NPD’s national organiser Sebastian Schmidtke and speakers included the NPD’s Dr Olaf Rose (a former member of the regional parliament of Saxony) as well as H&D‘s Peter Rushton and international guests from France and Finland.

German media admitted that this was the largest nationalist event in Berlin for many years. ‘Antifascists’ failed to prevent the march and failed to drown out the speakers.

Rudolf Hess (right) with Adolf Hitler and fellow National-Socialist leaders

‘Antifascist’ arson attacks damaged signalling equipment on railway lines near Berlin, which meant that hundreds of marchers were unable to reach the city. Around 250 comrades including NPD vice-president Thorsten Heise from Thuringia held a spontaneous demonstration in the Falkensee district, after the railway arson prevented them from reaching Spandau.

Due to the many oppressive laws in modern Germany, marchers and speakers at this weekend’s event were severely restricted in what they could say, or what symbols could be displayed.

However we were able to convey a clear message that murder can never be forgotten, and that justice demands the full disclosure of the true circumstances surrounding the incarceration and murder of Rudolf Hess.

This photograph of Hess was taken secretly in the grounds of Spandau Prison, where he died in August 1987

Click here for the full text of Peter Rushton’s speech in Spandau.

H&D assistant editor’s speech at Berlin demo

(This is the text of a speech delivered in Spandau, Berlin – with German translation – on Saturday 19th August 2017 by H&D‘s Peter Rushton.)

Spandau is the site of a shameful episode in my country’s history: the murder of Rudolf Hess, thirty years ago this week.

My country’s leaders ended Hess’s public life in 1941, beginning his 46 years of incarceration – first in Britain, then in Nuremberg, then here in Spandau.

Let us never forget that even at Nuremberg, Rudolf Hess was found not guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  He was convicted only of involvement in planning and preparing a so-called “war of aggression” – a retrospectively defined so-called “crime”.


I am not allowed to discuss the circumstances of Hess’s flight to Britain in 1941.  Although the achievements of the Federal Republic are so evident around us every day, it seems that this Republic feels threatened by any discussion of such historical matters!

The memorial stone at the spot where Rudolf Hess’s plane crash-landed in 1941. This stone was erected by British nationalists Tom Graham, Wallace Wears and Colin Jordan, but was later smashed by communists.



As late as 1987, the Federal Republic had to be protected against the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess, and even 30 years after his death, Rudolf Hess is seen as a threat to the post-1945 order, including the Federal Republic.


Last month the UK National Archives released thousands of pages of files about Hess and Spandau.  I visited the Archives in London and I have been reading those files.


In 1987 the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police stationed in Germany carried out an investigation of Hess’s death.  Yet both versions of their report (interim and final) remain secret.


They are officially listed as “retained” by the Foreign Office, under a regulation which normally applies to sensitive intelligence material.

Wolf Rüdiger Hess with the coffin of his father Rudolf Hess


This follows the advice of a telegram from Bonn to the Foreign Office soon after Hess’s death, in which a British diplomat writes:
“We agree that the autopsy report is not suitable for publication and that it would be preferable to avoid giving it to Wolf Rüdiger Hess.  …We also agree that it is desirable to act quickly.  This should help cut short speculation and allow media attention to move on to other things.”


There is no explanation of why aspects of the autopsy report and investigation were to be kept secret.

While the autopsy report is now public, the full reports investigating Hess’s death remain secret.

This photograph of Hess was taken secretly in the grounds of Spandau Prison, where he died in August 1987


Among the latest releases we can now see Foreign Office papers from the summer of 1989, drafting an official letter in reply to the late Ernst Zündel, who had asked Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for the release of these secret files, but we are still waiting for the whole truth.


Ernst Zündel himself was jailed for asking inconvenient questions; we are still waiting for the answers.


If the guardians of World Order truly wish to silence speculation about the murder of Rudolf Hess, these documents must be released – there can be no legitimate reason for their retention.


Those two vital reports are still secret: but what do we know from other files that are now public?


We know that in 1941 there was a plot to assassinate Hess, very soon after his arrival in Britain.  Brief details are revealed in the diary of a senior MI5 officer (Guy Liddell) and in correspondence between the Foreign Office and MI6.

Alfgar Hesketh-Prichard, a central figure in an earlier murder plot against Hess, is seen here (second right) with members of an SOE team that targeted Reinhard Heydrich a year later.

We know that this assassination plot involved Poles based in Scotland; and an officer of the Special Operations Executive, Alfgar Hesketh-Prichard, who was an expert sniper.

This same officer Hesketh-Prichard (a year later) commanded the assassins of Reinhard Heydrich.


That operation is well known, yet most details of the 1941 plot to murder Rudolf Hess remain secret.  What sort of ‘Poles’ planned this attempted murder; how and why did MI5 prevent it? What disputes took place within the British establishment?


It is illegal in the Federal Republic for me to speculate as to who might have been desperate to terminate Hess’s mission in 1941.  We cannot suggest what these assassins might have feared about Hess’s mission.

The recently published documents show that the authorities’ fear of Rudolf Hess even extended to censoring Yuletide cards.  A card sent from England by the political activist Colin Jordan was intercepted by the Spandau authorities at Yuletide 1983 and sent back to England to be investigated by our own ‘Verfassungsschutz’, the Special Branch.

Colin Jordan addresses a Trafalgar Square rally in 1962: a Yuletide card sent by Jordan to Hess in 1983 was censored by prison authorities

Many new documents in the archives are letters from Hess’s lawyer Dr Alfred Seidl, who fought a long and courageous campaign to oppose the entire basis of the Nuremberg charges against his client.

The recently released British documents give many details of Hess’s medical records, indicating for example that while he remained mentally alert even after suffering a stroke and partial blindness in 1978, he had many serious physical ailments, making the official account of his so-called suicide highly implausible.


Officially a succession of British politicians claimed that they wanted Hess to be released, and that his continued detention was due only to Soviet intransigence.


Then at the very moment when Soviet policy began to change, Hess conveniently (we are told) committed suicide.  It was very easy to blame the Soviets: but London had a problem when this excuse was no longer valid.

Independent medical experts agree that the horizontal mark across Hess’s neck indicates that he did not commit suicide (as this would have left oblique rather than horizontal scarring).



Given that the British authorities themselves accept the existence of a previous murder plot against Hess; given the extraordinary circumstances of his so-called suicide; and given its suspiciously convenient timing – all authorities concerned must admit that these suspicions can only be dispelled by the full release of all relevant documents.


Yet they refuse to do so.


Of course my country bears the main responsibility in this matter, but the Federal Republic in 2011 behaved even worse than the occupying powers in 1987, who had allowed Hess’s body to be released to his family for burial at Wunsiedel.


In 2011 this decision was reversed and a much earlier barbaric policy was reinstated, going back to a 1947 agreement in the Stalin-era to cremate Rudolf Hess, scatter the ashes and destroy even the box in which the ashes had been stored.


In fact in 2011 the entire family grave was destroyed.

The graveyard at Wunsiedel, before and after the official destruction of the Hess family grave in 2011



Such is the Federal Republic in the 21st century: their fear of National-Socialism and their barbaric counter-measures have taken us back to the Stalin-era – and in some respects worse than the Stalin-era.


We will only escape the shadow of Stalinism when German and British governments dare to confront the full truth of our history.


Only then will we have a free Germany, a free England, a free Europe.

Issue 79 of H&D published

The new issue (#79) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is now out.

The 26 page, July-August 2017 issue, has as its lead:

front cover issue 79Where Does British nationalism go from here? Andrew Brons calls for reassessment

Issue 79
July-August 2017

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Where does British Nationalism go from here?  – by Andrew Brons
  • Book Review: Offensive Diatribes, by David Abbott – reviewed by Ian Freeman.
  • UKIP Councillors wiped out in local elections: Is the party over? – Local election report by Peter Rushton.
  • Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd: South Africa’s Greatest Prime Minister, Part V – by Stephen Mitford Goodson
  • Book Review:  George Pitt-Rivers and the Nazis – by Bradley W. Hart reviewed by Eddy Morrison.
  • Spectacular failure of Tory election gamble: but BNP and UKIP are now irrelevant – General Election report by Peter Rushton.
  • H&D correspondent Eddy Morrison interviews controversial nationalist musician Alison Chabloz.
  • Movie Review: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword – reviewed by Mark Cotterill.
  • Two pages of readers’ letters
  • Movement News – latest analysis of the nationalist movement, by Peter Rushton

If you would like two sample copies please send £5.00 /$10.00 or for a years (6 issue) subscription, send £26.00 (UK) – $48.00 (USA) – £35.00/$48.00 (Rest of world) to:

Heritage and Destiny, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, England, UK

For information on back numbers and subscription details, please click here.

St Patrick – the Patron Saint of the USA

st pats flag on blue background

To mark today’s worldwide St Patrick’s Day celebrations, H&D published two articles on St Patrick which have recently appeared in the magazine.

This first article – “Saint Patrick the Patron Saint of the USA” – was written seven years ago, but the same issues are still being discussed in Loyalist circles today – now mainly on internet forums. So it was fitting that we republished it (in hard copy in issue #77 of H&D) on the run-up to this year’s St Patrick’s Day.

It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British…

As March 17th approaches, the annual debate has reignited on whether Unionism should embrace St Patrick and the day set aside for his commemoration. Over the last five years there has been a slow emergence of Protestant participation on the date, though that has been via the creation of new events rather than involvement in existing ones. This article examines the origin of St Patrick’s Day parades, this new emerging trend, its motivation and where it may possibly lead.

The question ‘where is the biggest St Patrick’s Day parade in Northern Ireland?’ at first glance would appear easily answered. Belfast most would say, with a few probably suggesting the Cathedral City of Armagh or even where he was allegedly laid to rest, Downpatrick. What will surprise many is that the largest parade for the last few years by sheer number of participants has been in the small County Armagh village of Killylea. It is here since 2005 the Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band have held their annual band procession and competition. Last year the Cormeen parade saw 42 bands take part (in comparison to the seven that paraded at the Dublin event), amounting to approximately 1800 band members. Thousands of spectators stood along the route, despite it being a bitterly cold evening.

The St Patrick's Day parade in Killylea, led by Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band

The St Patrick’s Day parade in Killylea, led by Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band

Cormeen Rising Sons of William chairman Mark Gibson explains that the bands original motivation for the parade came more out of necessity than anything else. “The band season is very busy, and when trying to find a date for our parade it was difficult to define one that didn’t clash with other bands locally.” Some members suggested March 17 as a solution to the problem, but the band was nervous. “We were concerned about how a St Patrick’s Day parade would go down in our community, the parade in Armagh never was very welcoming, but we made a decision to try it and it has been a success.”

From that initial year where thirteen bands took part, the parade is now among the largest in the Province. It’s not only the number of bands participating that has increased, but also the crowds attending to watch, and the event is increasingly becoming a fixture in the calendar for many Unionists. Another band, the Ulster Protestant Boys Flute Coleraine, have started a similar event on the date that too is growing. The ever increasing scale of both processions indicates clearly that there is certainly a willingness within the PUL (Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist) community to be involved in St Patrick’s Day. Where the schisms emerge are with the issues of why and how.

It is generally acknowledged that in the distant past Patrick was not a controversial figure for Protestants in Ireland or beyond. His ‘sainthood’ was never conferred by the Pope and pre-dates the reformation, so he was never seen as being the possession of ‘Rome’. St Patrick was seen as an evangelical Christian who had made personal sacrifice to spread the gospel in Ireland. The anniversary of his death was observed and commemorated by all Protestant denominations to different degrees, with the Church of Ireland in particular very active.

The shift from an anniversary of religious significance towards an ‘Irish’ event however first took place in the United States in 1737. In Boston that year the Irish Charitable Society, made up of Protestant immigrants (some of whom were British Soldiers), held their first meeting and dinner. The purpose was to both honour Patrick in the context of their Protestant faith and to reach out the hand of friendship to other Irish immigrants. The exercise obviously struck a chord and the practise spread, with the first recorded parade in New York in 1766, with again British Soldiers of Irish blood heavily involved. It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British.

During that period in history the vast majority of Irish immigrants were Presbyterian, however from 1830 it was Catholic arrivals who were in the ascendancy. With that change began an emphasis towards anti-British sentiment in the demonstrations. In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War anything portrayed as anti-colonial was well received, with even the many original Protestant immigrant descendants non-antagonistic of this motivation. Many British ‘Loyalists’ had left for Canada, and effectively the descendants of the original Protestant Irish settlers remaining saw themselves as primarily American in identity, with all that was left for their original ‘homeland’ of Ireland simply folk memory and sentimentality.

Mike Cronin, author of A History of St Patrick’s Day, states that whilst this tradition was developing, back in Ireland the first parades didn’t take place until the 1840s and even then they were organised by Temperance societies. Mike emphasises the lack of public celebration “The only other major events in nineteenth century Ireland was a trooping of the colour ceremony and grand ball held at Dublin Castle.” So even as late as 1911 the largest St Patrick’s Day occasion in Ireland was still rooted in a joint Irish and British expression of identity. Protestant churches and some Orange Lodges throughout the island appear to have held minor functions on the date, but these were very subdued affairs, and essentially even post-partition very little changed. Catholic observance of the day continued to different degrees in different areas, as did the Protestant nod to Patrick.

Right up until the 1960s the primary theme of St Patrick’s Day in both Northern Ireland and the Republic still remained religious observance, with even from 1923 to then public houses and bars in the Republic of Ireland closed by law. A poll conducted in 1968 suggested that 20% of Northern Irish Protestants at this stage still considered themselves Irish. The onset of civil unrest in Northern Ireland coincided however with the importation of the American style to St Patrick’s events in Dublin and elsewhere. Now whilst a violent conflict was being waged in the name of all things Irish, St Patrick’s Day parades were starting to display the features that had developed in the United States. On these parades Irish identity was perceived by Northern Protestants as being defined as aggressively anti-British and anti-Protestant, with the disjointed and casual nature of the parades and the now integral alcohol element alien to PUL parading traditions and customs.

The type of St Patrick's Day image most readers will recognise, from one of the many New York parades.

The type of St Patrick’s Day image most readers will recognise, from one of the many New York parades.

As the IRA campaign escalated, many Protestants simply could not divorce the fact that these celebrations displayed an exclusive form of Irish sentiment whilst a campaign was being waged against them in the name of Ireland. As the years progressed, in Northern Ireland in particular it became apparent that the day was being deliberately used in many instances as an extension of the Irish Republican war against Unionism.

Grand Orange Lodge Director of Services Dr David Hume reiterates the view that in the recent past it has been the nature of the parades and commemorative events that turned Protestants away. “The perception among Unionism is without doubt that Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism has used St Patrick’s Day parades as a weapon, effectively using the ‘shield’ of Patrick to express obvious militant anti-British and therefore anti-Unionist sentiment.” David believes that the manner and focus of these events is totally at odds with the purported motivation. “St Patrick’s Day should be used as a day of reflection on the religious significance of Patrick, something far removed from the aggressive and confrontational use of symbolism; and the huge emphasis on alcohol consumption that currently seems to be the case.” David bluntly states that the date isn’t an important one on the ‘Orange’ calendar, but recognises that it does have a place in society.

There remains one annual Orange Order parade related to St Patrick’s Day, which is held each year in Ballymena. One of the participating Lodges is The Cross of St Patrick LOL 688 which was founded in 1967. A lodge spokesperson describes the motivation behind its formation as being “to reclaim the heritage of Saint Patrick” explaining that “Brethren were concerned that Patrick’s heritage was being hijacked by Roman Catholicism and Republicanism.” The lodge’s concerns would appear to have been reflecting the growing sense of alienation the PUL community was feeling regarding St Patricks events.

There is no doubt that this alienation effectively forced many Protestants into an automatically negative position regarding St Patrick’s Day. With the advent of the IRA cessations of violence and the ongoing political process however, it has become apparent that many within Unionism have been able to reflect much more on the meaning of St Patrick’s Day for them. The ending of a violent ‘Irish’ physical campaign has given space to examine the date, with many now realising that it once was a date of relevance that they were forced into denying, and there is a willingness to make it relevant again. Nevertheless this reflection and willingness has not as yet manifested itself into significant participation in civic St Patrick’s Day parades.

With a few exceptions, such as the participation of an unashamedly Loyalist Blood and Thunder band in the 2003 Limerick St Patrick’s Band competition, Unionism still does not feel comfortable taking part in the modern version of a St Patrick’s parade. Concerns still exist regarding the involvement of militant Republicanism in such events along with the aggressive use of flags and symbols, but the problem seems to go much deeper.

The Cross of St Patrick Loyal Orange Lodge 688

The Cross of St Patrick Loyal Orange Lodge 688

Iain Carlisle of the Ulster Scots Community Network has a very straightforward and unambiguous answer regarding Unionist involvement in St Patrick’s Day events. Iain states very clearly “I don’t think there has to be ANY justification given for Protestants or Unionists marking Patrick’s day”, but goes on to say that “there is however a fundamental difference of approach to both Patrick as a person and the means of celebration within the Unionist community”. Iain’s comments would appear to reflect not just a general uncomfortable position with the overtly ‘United Ireland’ underlying St Patrick’s Day theme, but the actual motivation and method of celebration.

All historical examinations of Protestant Irish and their approach and relationship with Patrick indicates that for them he has never truly deviated from having a purely theological relevance. On St Patrick’s Day however the majority of Catholics, Irish Nationalists, Republicans, those of Irish descent and indeed anyone who wants a day out, St Patrick’s significance as a religious icon is purely tokenistic. St Patrick is merely a figurehead for overt Irish nationalism and a holiday. In turn the Unionist tradition of parading has developed from a military perspective and the American style parades are an alien concept, being perceived as being undisciplined and overtly casual.

Whilst new events have arisen, it is obvious that Unionism has no desire to abandon its central belief of Patrick’s religious relevance, and in addition is reluctant to embrace what it sees as an alien approach to parades. Even with the emergence of band parades on the date, they in themselves are a much more disciplined and subdued practise than their counterparts on the day. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that the PUL community is going through an ongoing examination of Patrick and his relevance to them. As journalist Chris Ryder recently pointed out “there will be no going back to the view that St Patrick was a Catholic, and a saint only for Catholics.”

Britain’s Rumour Factory – a new essay on the origins of the gas chamber story

In the current edition of Heritage and Destiny, Andy Ritchie reviews the new Hollywood film Denial, which purports to describe the libel contest between the British historian David Irving and his American Jewish critic Deborah Lipstadt, heard in London’s High Court during 2000.

In the essay below, published to mark the 88th birthday of the pioneering French revisionist researcher and author Professor Robert Faurisson, Andy Ritchie exposes the origins of the gas chamber story.  After a detailed examination of documentary evidence, he concludes that the British wartime agencies PWE and SOE “certainly did invent stories about homicidal gassings – the inventions were circulated long before any such gassings are now alleged to have taken place”.

Updates and additional information related to this story will appear on this page as further research material becomes available.

**************

Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, wartime intelligence supremo and 'Holocaust' sceptic, photographed in 1947

Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, wartime intelligence supremo and ‘Holocaust’ sceptic, photographed in 1947

For more than thirty years, historians have been aware of once-secret memoranda by senior British intelligence official Victor Cavendish-Bentinck in which he casts doubt on the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers by National Socialist Germany. Writing to Whitehall colleagues at the end of August 1943, Cavendish-Bentinck used dismissive language which today in most European countries would undoubtedly see him prosecuted for “Holocaust denial”.

During the trial of British historian David Irving’s libel action against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 (now dramatised in the Hollywood film Denial) some of Cavendish-Bentinck’s remarks were raised by Irving as justification of his claim that the gas chamber story originated as a propaganda lie. In his judgment against Irving, Mr Justice Gray accepted the counter-arguments of Lipstadt’s defence team. Their interpretation has since appeared in a book by Prof. Sir Richard Evans, who was among Lipstadt’s defence witnesses.

Seventeen years on from the Irving-Lipstadt trial, it is now possible to access a broader range of British documents, including intelligence material. In this essay I shall attempt to clarify what these documents tell us about the role of British propaganda and intelligence in relation to the initial allegations of homicidal gassing by National Socialist Germany.

The conclusions can be briefly summarised:

  • Britain’s Political Warfare Executive and its predecessor first deployed stories of homicidal gassing as part of propaganda efforts in two areas unconnected to treatment of Jews. Their objective was to spread dissension and demoralisation among German soldiers and civilians, and among Germany’s allies.
  • Partly because they knew of these earlier propagandist initiatives, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck and his British intelligence colleague Roger Allen disbelieved later stories that homicidal gas chambers had been used to murder Poles and Jews. They succeeded in having these allegations removed from the draft of a joint Anglo-American Declaration on German Crimes in Poland, published on 30th August 1943.

Click here to continue reading the essay Britain’s Rumour Factory in PDF format.

Issue 76 of H&D published

Wishing a Happy New Year to all our readers, we are happy to tell you that Issue 76 of H&D is now out.

The 26 page, January – February 2017 issue, has as its lead:

Trumping America’s liberal elite – After Donald Trump’s impressive Presidential victory, which way now for the American nationalist movement?

front-cover-issue-76

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Trump Wins! Now What? – by James Knight
  • Book Review: Haiters, Baiters and Would-Be Dictators, Anti-Semitism and the UK Far-Right, by Nick Toczek – Part II of a review by Ian Freeman
  • Obituary – Clive Derby-Lewis 1936-2016 by Peter Rushton
  • Predictions for the Coming Year – by Julian Langness
  • Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd: South Africa’s Greatest Prime Minister, Part II – by Stephen Mitford Goodson
  • Book Review: Match Day – Ulster Loyalism and the British Far-Right – by Tony Simms reviewed by Mark Cotterill.
  • CD Review – Black Crows – by McIvor/Morrison – reviewed by Eddy Morrison
  • Trump Victory Provokes Anglo-Jewish Hysteria – by Peter Rushton
  • Obituaries – Chris (Weasel) Ledger – by Eddy Morrison; and Keith (Beefy) Taylor – by Kevin Watmough
  • Movie Review: Imperium – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
  • Two pages of readers’ letters
  • Movement News – latest analysis of the nationalist movement, by Peter Rushton

If you would like two sample copies please send £5.00 /$10.00 or for a years (6 issue) subscription, send £26.00 (UK) – $48.00 (USA) – £35.00/$48.00 (Rest of world) to:

Heritage and Destiny, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, England, UK

For information on back numbers and subscription details, please click here.

Will the real Thomas Mair please stand up?

Todd Blodgett addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in July 1999.  Don Black the webmaster of Stormfront is seated to his left.

Todd Blodgett addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in July 1999. Don Black the webmaster of Stormfront is seated to his left.

Some of you may have seen the article – “Accused British Assassin Thomas Mair Attended Racists’ 2000 Meeting” on the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Centre) website on June 19th.

The article was written by the SPLC’s top honcho Mark Potok but the story was provided by one Todd Blodgett, a former employee of the Reagan White House administration, John Whitehouse, Liberty Lobby, Resistance Records, and now it seems the FBI!

Blodgett – whom I once knew very well as my employer, friend and fellow racial-nationalist from 1998 to 2002 – has sadly sold his soul again to the SPLC: for money for a few more lines of cocaine no doubt.

Potok (who was never one to let truth get in the way of a good story) and Blodgett then came up with the tale of Thomas Mair’s supposed links to the nationalist movement in general and the National Alliance in particular, which it is claimed brought him down to London for a “racist meeting” in May 2000.

So desperate for a few more bucks to feed his habit(s), Blodgett has invented the whole story about Thomas Mair attending this racist meeting and how Todd met and talked to him there. And how I, with my vast network of racist contacts in the UK supposedly organised the whole event from my ground-floor apartment (flat) in Falls Church, Northern Virginia. A story which the SPLC bought (literally!) from him!

Now to give Blodgett some credit he did attend a meeting of some 15-20 racial nationalist activists near the Strand, in central London – but it was not organised by me and it was certainly not in May 2000. The meeting was in fact organised by Nick Griffin, then unofficial number two in the BNP to the late John Tyndall, and was held sometime during 1998.

At that time Blodgett was working for Willis Carto at Liberty Lobby, and not as he now claims for Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance.  Carto had purchased Resistance Records from Jason Snow and George Burdi/Hawthorne a year or so beforehand but later wanted to sell it on. (I guess he did not wish his Spotlight newspaper to be associated with Skinheads anymore.)

Blodgett was in fact the middle man between Willis Carto and William Pierce (who by the way hated each other, so would not deal with each other directly – so they did the deal via Todd Blodgett, who may or may not have taken a small cut for his trouble).

Stevie Cartwright addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in March 1999.  Dr. Sam Francis, former columnist for the Washington Times is seated to his left.

Stevie Cartwright addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in March 1999. Dr. Sam Francis, former columnist for the Washington Times is seated to his left.

Griffin with the help of then Scottish BNP activist Stevie Cartwright (Blodgett got that bit right too) got together 15 to 20 of the main players in the Nationalist music scene, who were also sympathetic to Griffin and his future challenge for the BNP leadership, to meet Blodgett and hear his plans for expanding Resistance Records into Britain and the European Market.

Whether his FBI controllers were with Blodgett at the London meeting is unknown but if I were a gambling man I would say it was very, very doubtful because:
(a) I doubt very much that he was an FBI informant back in 1998 and
(b) the American Spooks did not really take that much notice or interest in us (what they would call the far-right) until after 9/11 – and after 9/11 of course it all went rather mental!

Anyway, back to the London meeting in the Strand in 1998 (not 2000). One thing is clear after 18 years: Thomas Mair was not at that meeting, he had not been invited, and in fact nobody had ever heard of him! The meeting was for the top / key players in the scene – Mair was not even IN the scene!

Blodgett made up the story that Mair was there and fed (sold) it to the SPLC, who in turn passed it on to news agencies around the world – including our very own BBC – who have now called me twice to find out more about this Thomas Mair chap.

Amongst his fairy tales Blodgett claims that Mair was “loosely affiliated with the Leeds chapter of the National Alliance”. The NA never had a Leeds Chapter – in fact they never even had a UK chapter, though a now deceased individual in the Leeds area ran a mail order book service with NA connections. Around that time – 1998-2000 – the NA may have had 20 to 30 members in the whole of the UK, and that’s tops. They were not organised as chapters and in most cases did not even know each other.

Dr. William Pierce addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in August 1999.   Don Wassall, editor of the Nationalist Times is seated to his left.

Dr. William Pierce addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in August 1999. Don Wassall, editor of the Nationalist Times is seated to his left.

My guess is (and I must stress this is only a guess) is that Mair knew somebody in the Batley area (maybe an NF or BNP member) who got him some flyers and/or catalogues from the NA. This person may have got these at a local NF/BNP meeting, where fringe literature from the USA was often (unofficially) passed around.

Potok goes on in his article about Mair subscribing to a “pro-apartheid South African publication”. The magazine that Mair did in fact subscribe to was South African Patriot In Exile (SAPIE) – published by one Alan Harvey, from his mother’s house in Herne Bay on the Kent coast – many, many miles away from South Africa.

Mair, in a letter he sent to SAPIE which was published in issue #31 in 1992, claimed he first got hold of their magazine via the NF. He did not say whether he wrote off to the NF and bought it from them (they did sell South African Patriot [the forerunner to SAPIE] at the time) or if he bought it at a local NF meeting in Yorkshire. Mair had a further letter published by SAPIE in issue #35 in 1995.

Strangely Potok does not mention that SAPIE was very pro-Zionist and very anti-Nazi (and still is as far as I’m aware) or that its editor Alan Harvey describes himself as “101% pro-Israel”. I guess that would not tie in well with his claims that Mair was a “neo-Nazi”.

Richard Barnbrook addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in August 2000.  He attended the meeting with his American wife and her family.

Richard Barnbrook addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in August 2000. He attended the meeting with his American wife and her family.

Further on in the article Blodgett claims that Richard Barnbrook was at this “secret meeting” supposedly held in May 2000. Barnbrook first appeared on the Nationalist scene in the summer of 2000 where he was the official cameraman at the BNP’s inaugural Red, White and Blue Festival near Oswestry. Barnbrook later came to fame when he became the first (and only) BNP member to be elected to the Greater London Assembly in 2008. As I pointed out earlier the London meeting was in fact held in 1998, and Barnbrook was not there. I doubt he was even a member of the BNP then.

Potok goes on in the next paragraph to say that I was “later deported (from the USA) for his activities”. Well as anybody with half a brain cell can find out by going online, I have never been deported from the USA – or any other country for that matter. But as I said earlier, Potok was never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Just for the record I was handed a 10-year exclusion order from an immigration judge in Arlington County, Virginia in September 2002. The judge gave me three months to vacate the USA, as I had my home, job and wife there, so we needed plenty of time to sort things out. I vacated the USA with my wife Jenny at the start of November 2002 and have never returned since.

Ok, back to the “secret meeting”. Potok claims that Dr. William Pierce (leader of the NA) “had recently bought Resistance Records”. This is another lie: at the time of the meeting RR was still owned by Willis Carto.

Potok further states that he (Pierce) “would soon be releasing an electronic game to be called Ethnic Cleansing.” Another whopper of a lie here. That game was released in 2002, four years after that “secret meeting”. So ask yourself who could or would have been “giddy” (as Blodgett and Potok claim) about an electronic game that had not even been invented yet and was still four years from release?

After having spoken to Stevie Cartwright at some length about the “secret meeting” in London’s Strand back in 1998 (his memories of the era are a lot clearer than mine, well I am 55 going on 56 now!) he can categorically state that Blodgett knew no one personally at all who was invited to that meeting, either by name or by description. That being so he would not have known whether Thomas Mair had been there or not, which of course he wasn’t anyway.

Another fact exposing the lie that this meeting was held in 2000 was the fact that when Stevie Cartwright came to the USA in March 1999 to do a series of speeches and “house meetings” he also did some work in Todd Blodgett’s temporary Resistance Records office in the Woodley Park area of Washington DC. Stevie was renewing his acquaintance with Todd whom he had met before at that London meeting. So how on earth could that meeting have been in 2000? A complete nonsense!

If the truth be known, and that’s REAL truth – not some Cock and Bull Story made up by Potok and Blodgett – it might well be that Thomas Mair did have an interest in racial-nationalism, and that’s why he bought papers, magazines and books from a whole host of what the BBC would describe as “Far-Right” groups – including the National Alliance, South African Patriot and the National Front.

However, that does not make Mair a right-wing/nationalist/neo-Nazi (or whatever you want to call it) activist. Far from it, Mair was what some in our movement used to call an “arm-chair nationalist”, but now would more likely be called a “keyboard warrior”, i.e. he was the opposite of an activist – a non-activist in fact. He did nothing at all for the nationalist cause or movement in the past 15 to 20 years.

And the first time we hear of him is when he is accused of murdering the Labour MP Jo Cox on Thursday 16th June 2016.

Mark Cotterill addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in July 1999.  Vincent Breeding, then election campaign manager for David Duke is seated to his left.

Mark Cotterill addressing an AF-BNP meeting in Arlington, Virginia in July 1999. Vincent Breeding, then election campaign manager for David Duke is seated to his left.

As Todd Blodgett has chosen to put himself at the centre of this ridiculous conspiracy, either for monetary gain or as a favour to his handlers, then surely any prosecuting lawyer worth his salt would call Blodgett as a witness to the character and alleged “prejudices” of Tommy Mair. However, once the details are looked into and examined at length it would be blatantly clear that this was simply a fiction from the fevered mind of a criminal liar, fantasist and traitor who has been egged on by his bosom buddies in the SPLC hate group.

Now as anybody in the movement who knows me can tell you, I’m not one for conspiracy theories and never have been: but something is just not right here. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I – or somebody better than me – will. The real truth about Thomas Mair will come out. So Mark Potok – watch this space!

Mark Cotterill, editor, Heritage and Destiny

PS: In a few days time Heritage and Destiny will publish a further exposé of the SPLC/FBI hired liar and crook Todd Blodgett.

Jock Spooner, 1943-2016

We greatly regret to announce the death today in Adelaide, Australia, of H&D‘s great friend, comrade and patron Jock Spooner.

Jock will be remembered by many readers as a dynamic NF organiser in Birmingham during the 1970s.

Born on St George’s Day in 1943, he had worked in Australia for many years before retirement, and remained a generous supporter of nationalist causes right up to his last moment. Despite years of serious illness, Jock had an active retirement, travelling the world to pursue his interests in history and archaeology. He was a loyal and valued supporter of many good causes, including the Australian academic Dr Fred Töben who was infamously threatened with extradition from London to Germany in 2008 under a European Arrest Warrant.

 

Jock Spooner (far left) with comrades (left to right) Dr Fredrick Toben, Joseph Smith, Peter Hartung and Dave Astin at the Newmarket Hotel in Port Adelaide, South Australia, in 2015.

Jock Spooner (far left) with comrades (left to right) Dr Fredrick Toben, Joseph Smith, Peter Hartung and Dave Astin at the Newmarket Hotel in Port Adelaide, South Australia, in 2015.

Several of Jock’s old mates including the H&D team will be raising a glass or three in his memory later today. A full obituary will appear in the next edition of the magazine.

Enoch Powell’s 1968 warning on immigration

In the March 2016 issue of Heritage and Destiny we feature an article on Ulster by Enoch Powell – an article which was first commissioned, then suppressed by Mrs Thatcher’s government, which was already involved in pursuing a treacherous deal with the IRA.

Enoch Powell served as Ulster Unionist MP for South Down from 1974 to 1987, having previously been a senior Conservative politician until he was forced out of the Tory party for his 1968 speech on immigration.

This speech – delivered to Birmingham’s Conservative Association on April 20th 1968 – became known as the “rivers of blood” speech (though that phrase never appears), because Powell had quoted lines from the Roman poet Virgil, who wrote of the Sibyl of Cumae (a prophetic priestess) warning the Trojan hero Aeneas that she sees a vision of the River Tiber (on which Aeneas is about to found Rome) “foaming with much blood”. (Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno).  The line appears in Book VI, Line 87 of Virgil’s Aeneid.

There follows the complete text of Powell’s 1968 speech:

Enoch Powell was sacked from the Conservative shadow cabinet in 1968 for warning against britain's racial transformation. Margaret Thatcher refused to back him and kept her job.

Enoch Powell was sacked from the Conservative shadow cabinet in 1968 for warning against Britain’s racial transformation.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase.

Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

schools - nonwhites

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.”

This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

Powell And Farmer

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week.
“She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

Sikhs - Parliament - protest

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

A march to the Home Office in 1972 by Smithfield meat porters protesting at the admission of more than 27,000 Asian immigrants from Uganda.

A march to the Home Office in 1972 by Smithfield meat porters protesting at the admission of more than 27,000 Asian immigrants from Uganda.

 

2015 John Tyndall Memorial DVD now available

 

JTDVDx2

We now have DVDs from this year’s (2015) John Tyndall Memorial Meeting for sale.

The meeting was professionally filmed and edited, and is of excellent quality. It’s on 2 DVDs and lasts around 3 hours, including footage from almost every speaker.

To order your copy please send a cheque/postal order for £15.00 (which includes postage) to:
“Heritage and Destiny”,
40 Birkett Drive,
Preston,
PR2 6HE

Or if you have PayPal send £15.00 to heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com

Overseas subscribers please send £20.00 or $30.00.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News