For some reason, during what turned out to be his final few days before apparently succumbing to heart failure early yesterday morning, I had been thinking about Richard Edmonds. In particular, I remembered him telling me more than once how much he loved my songs. “They’re the most entertaining thing I’ve ever heard,” he said. He was bashful, yet sincere.
Despite having been coerced, later on, into denouncing me as “a traitor and a saboteur”, there is no doubt that Richard did do all he could to try and persuade his nationalist BFFs* to change their opinion of me.
Season’s greetings to all. Here is a brief review of 2019 that, in the end, turned out to be not so brief. The new year is fraught with the prospect of yet another upcoming spell behind bars, for singing songs. More on that later…
Following on from yesterday’s post, here I wish to focus particular attention on past incidents, notably concerning assistant editor of bi-monthly periodical, Heritage & Destiny (H&D), Peter Rushton.
The last London Forum to date was held at the Strand Palace May 2017. On the morning of the event, I watched several ‘anti-fascist’ Twitter accounts closely and was able to alert organisers Jez Turner and Stead Steadman that the pre-meeting rendez-vous location had been leaked: a group of Antifa thugs was about to debark and attempt to disrupt and halt the meeting. Thanks to my online vigilance and quick thinking on the part of the organisers who were immediately able to change the RV point, the meeting went ahead with only minor disruption from a handful of protesters gathered on the narrow pavement outside, quickly moved on by police.
A week or so before the meeting, I had also attended a social evening in London. Towards the end of the gathering, I inadvertently gave Turner and two other men present a false lead concerning Turner’s Google search results. In fact, my Search Tools had been set to “past month” rather than “any time”, bringing up results of recent posts published by obscure nationalist outfit British Resistance run by Jack Sen and Carl Mason; several blog posts and YouTube videos published that month claimed Turner was a police spy; these results naturally came top of Google’s specific “past month” search of Turner’s name.
A few days later I noticed that Hope Not Hate (HnH) “Head of Intel” Matthew Collins had reproduced my false lead on Turner’s Google search results in one of his Far Right Roundup series. This post has since been removed from the HnH website. Two AlexaCrawls screenshots of the URL are also missing from Archive.org’s Wayback Machine, suggesting that Collins published his piece on or before May 17th and that the article must have been taken down once Collins knew the lead to be false.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have the presence of mind to take a screenshot of Collins’ article, but I did mention it to Jez Turner. Here’s where things get a little complicated so please bear with me.
May 20th, British Resistance‘s Carl Mason sent an email to Turner stating:
“Congratulations copper, you’re names [sic] number 1 in the search engines as a copper.”
If I am mistaken about the date of Collins’ article (which I’m pretty sure I’m not…) then how else could Mason have known about the false lead? It must be reasonable to assume that Mason’s email to Turner was sent after reading Collins’ Roundup.
Now, time to reveal the names of the two other men present when I supplied my inadvertent false lead: Stead Steadman and Peter Rushton.
As stated above, after reading Collins’ piece, I told Turner in person about the article and explained that my information had been false owing to the fact that my Search Tools had been geared to the wrong settings. I distinctly remember telling Rushton the same, also in person, separately.
Fast forward to the end of 2018 and the sabotage of the Shepperton conference from which I was originally banned and then, without a shred of evidence, labelled by Rushton and his cohorts as “a traitor and a saboteur”.
As confirmed by several of the Shepperton conference attendees, the tale spun by HnH and Collins after the event is 99% rubbish, clearly intended to muddy the waters and shield their inside source from suspicion. As well, HnH’s tweet on the day of the conference asking a certain “Sophie” to “call back” stinks entirely of a set-up.
Interestingly, Gerry Gable’s Searchlight elaborates on a different yet equally bizarre conspiracy theory:
Stead Steadman is clearly being targeted, as noted in Gable’s reference to the HnH queer Swede’s infiltration of Jez Turner’s London Forum. Perhaps the “suspicious absence” in the final sentence refers to yours truly, although this is impossible to confirm as Gable mentions no names. However, Steadman did not attend the Shepperton conference as he had other plans that day. (H&D online’s November 25th statement accusing me of sabotaging the Shepperton conference was quickly followed by a gleeful post by Collins that I vaguely refer to here).
There is nothing whatsoever sinister about Steadman. However, the same cannot be said for Rushton.
Just another couple of anecdotes before l leave readers to make up their own minds.
Following news in October 2017 that members of the proscribed group National Action had plotted to murder Labour MP Rosie Cooper, Rushton wrote: “this murder plot sounds very far-fetched and H&D is aware of a very different story, which we cannot yet publish for legal reasons” [H&D n° 81 November-December 2017 p.3].
In February 2018, shortly before Rushton and I parted ways, he told me in person that he knew of an inside plot to frame National Action (NA) members for this alleged murder plan. Five months later in June once the trial had begun, the public was informed that the charges against NA members were the result of infiltration of NA by a HnH operative. In fact, the insider, Robbie Mullen, has been on the HnH payroll since April 2017.
The question is, of course, how did Peter Rushton get hold of this sensitive information before anyone else, including the media?
And how did Matthew Collins get hold of my false lead on Jez Turner’s search results as described above?
It’s no secret that both men like a drink from time to time. In one recent beer-fuelled missive, Rushton claims he is ready to provide “judge, jury and EXECUTIONER” in order to have me “surgically removed” from “movement circles”. I kid you not…
Collins’ ramblings on Twitter and elsewhere lend a fair impression of his intellectual capacities – or rather lack of them – but it’s hard to imagine him spouting desperate hyperbole à la Rushton in emails to fellow System drones. Karl Hohenstauffen of the London Regional Press Office is right when he says H&D and HnH feed off each other – they need each other in order to confirm their own existence. In any case, neither is to be trusted, as confirmed by HnH November-December 2018 magazine, issue n° 37, p. 38:
The brief text – obviously written in rather a hurry and therefore dotted with typos – states:
“Edmonds and Chabloz marching alongside each other was made the more interesting as he was at the time party to a soon to be released denouncement of Chabloz, decrying her a “traitor and saboteur”…
Email exchanges between Richard Edmonds and myself, during the days following November’s NF parade to the Cenotaph, show that such claims are the product of pure fantasy. Indeed, two days after the parade on November 13th, Edmonds sent a round-robin email to a group of nationalists – including myself – marvelling at the success of last November’s event:
“Soon we will publish the film of this years NF’s parade to the Cenotaph. You will see that we organise a serious and disciplined march with flags flying and heads held high, and all with the kind permission of the authorities.”
If Edmonds knew he was to be party to my denunciation before the NF parade took place, then why would he risk undermining his own party by inviting me to speak at the rally afterwards, then sending out the above, in the full knowledge that a video would be uploaded to YouTube and to the NF website?
Prior to publication, Edmonds was asked for a statement clarifying this apparent inconsistency, but he declined to respond.
This post is the first of a series of three articles addressing the ongoing internecine campaign to oust me from British nationalism-revisionism.
After having blamed me for sabotaging Professor Robert Faurisson’s final conference in Shepperton and then holding me responsible for the 89-year old professor’s death the following day, the pitch coming from my detractors has suddenly shifted into trying to shame me into abandoning my appeal. Spin now also includes mental health smears that I would be “insane”.
Firstly, a brief word about the three signatories of the original Shepperton sabotage statement:
Michele Renouf is the same age as my mother. One regular London Forum attendee, also female, describes Renouf as the “self-appointed Secretary General of the UK Revisionist Closed Shop Union” – an apt appraisal.
In a recent email, former BNP leader Nick Griffin had this to say about Renouf’s involvement in the smear campaign against me:
“I think that the motivation of Renouf is probably simple personal jealousy. She spent several years as the poster-girl of the clique of elderly single men who make up the most visible and noisy section of the ‘far-right’ in Britain, then you came along, younger and with much more ability. No more explanation needed.”
Not wishing to further embarrass Renouf, I shan’t be publishing similar views from other correspondents. However, more information on Renouf is included below.
Veteran nationalist Richard Edmonds is also the same age as my mother. When giving speeches, Edmonds likes to boast about having managed to survive in nationalist politics for so long a) because he’s never made a fool of himself over women and b) because he never mentions people’s names. (Ironically, when former BNP organiser Bob Gertner was also facing internal accusations of working for the enemy, Edmonds supported him on grounds of there being no evidence).
As Edmonds is the person (patsy?) to insist I should abandon my appeal – implying also that I should grovel to the opposition rather than fight back – he might like to take note of legal proceedings during the early 2000s against the late Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, whose appeal led to the Swiss Federal Tribunal reducing his prison sentence for historical revisionism from 15 months to just three.
(N.B. Guillaume/William Nichols was Prof Faurisson’s private secretary for many years. For unknown reasons he gave his approval to the published statement but didn’t actually go as far as signing his own name. Since then, he’s included me in several round-robin emails and even replied to Edmonds’ scaremongering, insisting that I am “sincere, albeit slightly insane”).
Peter Rushton is two years younger than me. Perhaps the fact that he spends most of his time in the company of seniors has caused him to look the same age as my mother? (NB My mother’s stylish dress sense and constant temperament gives her the edge over my detractors any day).
When Rushton was proscribed from the BNP in 2002 following multiple allegations of dubious activity, his written response included the following gem:
“As any fair-minded reader will realise, the issue is not whether I had a legal right to a tribunal. The issue is whether I had a moral right, and far more importantly whether the leadership was really interested in the truth.
“If you are interested in finding out the truth of an allegation, the most obvious thing to do is to put the allegation to the person concerned. ‘Evidence’ is not really evidence at all until it has been rigorously tested.
“Griffin and Lecomber, characteristically, preferred not to test any of their ‘evidence’. I and many others were first told that there could be no mention, let alone discussion, of any of the charges, let alone the evidence!”
Crucially, it was Renouf herself who in 2017 told me that Rushton had first made contact with her after he had created two promotional websites: Telling Films and Jailing Opinions.
Like Griffin, historian and investigative journalist Larry O’Hara of Notes From The Borderland is convinced that Rushton, aka Captain Hook (aka Andy Ritchie aka Leo Clitheroe), is a state asset:
[…] Rushton is a long-term Searchlight/state mole, and as the former’s star is waning, it is entirely plausible he has hooked up with HNH [Hope Not Hate] too. In 2002 the Nick Griffin-led BNP expelled him because of cumulative evidence […]. To quote (for the first time anywhere) a contemporary (22/10/02) intelligence report by one of Rushton’s handlers:
“has been at the centre of an ongoing war between various factions within and outside of the BNP. He appears to have Tyndall on side and has set up a NWBNP site to put the case of his supporters. He has also on my advice gone down the Data Protection path to ask to see what they hold on him……He has some heavy people behind him. It could run and run”.
It certainly has ‘run and run’, but maybe has now finally run its course. […] Rather than embarrass Rushton further I merely say this: is it not time, honestly, that Captain slung his Hook?
The ridiculousness of the signatories’ claims against me speaks for itself, as does Edmonds’ latest scaremongering attempt to persuade me to abandon my appeal. Indeed, Rushton’s use of bold text in the H&D online edition of Edmonds’ piece further confirms that he – Rushton – was the instigator of the “strategy” angle all along (= my songs would be a disaster for “real” revisionists) and therefore also the main culprit behind the conspiracy to oust me from British nationalism-revisionism.
See also Rushton’s comment in the new H&D print edition: this fake nationalist doesn’t even have the cojones to mention my name. If Rushton and his editor Mark Cotterill think that intelligent people are likely to believe such garbage, then perhaps it’s worth noting the following “biography” written by Rushton on one of the websites he dedicated to Renouf just over a decade ago:
The only verifiable facts of the above are Renouf’s Australian origins, her move to London in 1970, ballet classes (her mother ran a ballet school) and her marriages – although “happy” would seem to somewhat contradict Renouf’s decision to run off and marry a billionaire. Maybe “happy” simply wasn’t enough and she was in search of wealth and a title as well? Renouf’s only bonafide diploma is her teaching certificate from Australia. The rest is bogus, including claims of Russian nobility and most likely the ballerina pic too.
Despite hard evidence in black and white that both Rushton and Renouf have lied (see photos below) and are still lying through their teeth in order to discredit and defame me, a number of patriots still seem in awe of them. Oh, and before I forget, there is apparently no public record of Rushton ever having obtained a first class degree in History from Oxford. Again according to O’Hara, it was Gerry Gable’s Searchlight that originally published this story years ago. Furthermore, Rushton’s defence witness statement in my original trial was submitted without my prior knowledge. His offering – a few photocopied pages of Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry along with various links from The Guardian and elsewhere – arrived in my inbox as part of my lawyer’s submission to the court.
Above: Rushton’s and Renouf’s claims regards my Vichy 2017 performance were proven to be false after a video of the event was finally released May 2018.
Returning to the Shepperton debacle, it is now almost impossible to reach any other conclusion: Rushton and Renouf wanted me removed from revisionist circles long before the Shepperton conference actually took place. Several sources who attended the conference have confirmed that Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hatetaking credit for following a group of attendees from Waterloo is bunkum. HNH’s informant had to be one of the party and all trails lead back to the organisers themselves, to an invited guest, or to a combination of both.
Perhaps patriots reading this will now begin to understand why UK nationalist politics have repeatedly failed to achieve anything of consequence? As for my appeal, if Rushton, Renouf, Edmonds, et al., truly believe that I should forego my rights and grovel to the opposition, thanking them for the “leniency” of my sentence, then they are hugely mistaken.
Notwithstanding my conviction for posting politically incorrect songs to the Internet, by far the toughest battle I’ve faced throughout 2018 has been an emotionally gruelling and bitter test involving individuals who are supposed to be on the same side. For the record, and in order to bring this difficult year to a close, you will find below various extracts and posts taken from monthly updates on this website.
Evidence of a conspiracy to oust me from revisionist ranks has stacked up over the course of the year, some of which is included below, along with articles touching on my trial and other general topics of interest to nationalists and those in favour of free speech. Also featured are several of my favourite writings of 2018.
It’s at times like these that one gets to know who one’s true friends are. Huge thanks for all the kind and supportive messages received over the past few days. I am still waiting for proof – one SINGLE proof – of allegations made against me. So far, nada.
There was, however, enough proof to find lawyer Mark Lewis guilty of bringing his profession into disrepute. In a report published yesterday, the Jewish Chronicle predictably claimed I was one of his “attackers”. Poor man. In the warped minds of certain hacks, being asked questions in a civil manner equates to being “attacked”? Twice in the space of less than a week, this same publication has also stated that I was given a “two-year suspended sentence”. As one good friend notes: would that be illiteracy, ignorance, or a wish to mislead? Oh well, at least the JC can be said to act in the tribal interests of its readership. Continue reading →
First off, a slight correction as to my speculations yesterday regards the Tommy Robinson affair. Apparently, Robinson was aware of reporting restrictions on the case. He simply did not understand why these restrictions were in place, namely to avoid jury contamination. Everyone has the right to fair trial. Similar restrictions are currently in place for several high-profile nationalist trials. We cannot complain about contempt rules only when it suits us. Readers will have decide for themselves whether or not Robinson’s actions were deliberately intended to a) jeopardise potential convictions and/or b) to deflect attention away from my case. The most relevant point is that it is indeed the issue of free speech which is the prime motivator of current support for Robinson. We now need to open his supporters’ eyes to those who are in fact behind the desire to further limit our most precious of freedoms.
You must be logged in to post a comment.