The Writings of Revilo P Oliver 1908-1994


by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, June 1988)

WHEN I SAW the column by Jim Taylor that was published in the February issue, I perceived that two of my recent "Postscripts" were closely connected. The long footnote which summarized an article in Die Bauernschaft made them fit together like two pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. And that suggests a possible escape from an historical dilemma.


In January, under the rubric "The Business of Deception," I commented on the furor excited in England by the publication in Australia of Peter Wright's book, Spycatcher, which will shortly be published in this country, and which I have not yet seen.

The government of Prime Ministress Maggie had viewed with complacency the publication of Chapman Pincher's Their Trade is Treachery, in which the journalist, on the basis of information supplied by Peter Wright, merely added a fifth Englishman, the late Roger Hollis, to the list of four who had already been identified as traitors and Soviet agents at the time they served in MI5, the heart of British Military Intelligence, during and after the war that resulted in the destruction of Germany and the liquidation of the British Empire. The same government, however, had hysteria and made frantic efforts to prevent the publication of Peter Wright's book in Australia; to suppress it after it was published; and to prevent copies from reaching Little Britain, where its revelations might start some Englishmen to thinking. The efforts failed, and evidently left Maggie and her bosses in a frenzy of frustration.

I commented on an article by an anonymous former member of MI5, who declared that Chapman Pincher's book had been produced to divert suspicion from Lord Rothschild, a Jew who had been given a title that was honorable when it was restricted to British noblemen. And I pointed out that, whatever the author professed as his purpose, the net effect of his article in Private Eye was to show that Rothschild had not only been a power in MI5 at the time Hollis was its head, but had openly and with impunity threatened to disclose to the Soviets Britain's most vital military secrets, thus exposing the absurdity of expecting a Jew to feel loyalty to any nation but his own.

Chapman Pincher, perhaps fancying himself a doughty knight riding to Maggie's rescue, has rushed into print with another book, The Web of Deception -- The Spycatcher Affair, of which excerpts, published in advance of the book, filled two pages in the Sunday Express (London), 15 November 1987. Pincher's purpose is to blunt so far as possible the effect of Peter Wright's revelations, and the excerpts are an odd and rather malodorous pot pourri.

Pincher even descends to descanting on the income that Wright received as his share of the royalties on Pincher's earlier book, and to implying that Wright wanted to make even more from Spycatcher, but he fails to explain why it is fine for Pincher, a very prosperous journalist, to make money from books, while it is a sin for Wright, now an elderly man in retirement on a small pension, to do the same thing.

Pincher distracts attention with what is intended to be an amusing story. In 1974, when Harold Wilson, the thug who was head of the Labour Party, was Prime Minister, he, Chapman Pincher, entertained his fellow guests at a luncheon by repeating gossip that MI5 had information that Wilson and his dear secretary, Marcia Williams, were members of Communist Cell No. 10. Pincher's gossip was reported to Wilson and sent him into such a panic that he became "paranoid" with fear of surveillance. He sought help from Sir Maurice Oldfield, the [reportedly Jewish!] head of MI6 (the arm of MI5 for operations abroad, i.e., espionage, which is euphemistically called 'counter-intelligence'). Oldfield later, meeting Pincher, told him of Wilson's panic, whereupon Pincher, in a book published in 1976, declared that "certain officers inside MI5....were actually trying to bring down the Labour Government." But, you see, that was just Pincher's gossip that had come back to him. Ha, ha, ha!

Before you roar with laughter, reflect that everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of Communist operations knows very well that a Bolshevik conspirator who attained the rank of Prime Minister would long before have ceased to be a member of a Communist cell, if (as is most unlikely) he had ever been such a member and thus in a position to be fatally compromised by a defector. Then consider what conclusions should be drawn, if at some luncheon you had suggested that the F.B.I. had learned that old Ronnie Reagan was a member of the gang that imports cocaine to demoralize Americans, and your speculation was carried to Ronnie and threw him into such a panic that he became "paranoid" and called in the head of the C.I.A. to rescue him. We need not complete the analogy by supposing that the head of the C.I.A., perhaps having become senile and childish, does not inquire about Ronnie's sources and never thinks of inquiring whether the F.B.I. has in fact been investigating Ronnie's activities. The mere fact of paranoid panic in either story will suffice to remind you of the oft-quoted aphorism in the Jew-Book about those who "flee when no man pursueth."

What is important in Pincher's story is what he reveals obiter:

1. Wilson did use his authority as Prime Minister to prevent MI5 from investigating two of his pet Sheenies, Rudi Sternberg and a woman named Beattie. And, by the bye, Sternberg soon became Lord Plurenden, Beattie became Lady Plummer, and Wilson's secretary, Marcia Williams, became Lady Falkender. One is reminded of the authentic British nobleman who, a few years ago, renounced his hereditary title with the explanation, "Who the Hell would want to be a peer these days?" (1)

(1. One is reminded of the brilliant and ill-fated English poet, Rupert Brooke, who traveled in the South Seas in 1913, spending some time in Tahiti and Samoa, and wrote home that he would remember the brilliance and lush beauty of the tropics when he returned to the gloom of London, "where everything's too grey, and there's an amber fog that grips your throat -- and another Jew has bought a peerage." (Quoted in the biography by Arthur Stringer, Red Wine of Youth (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1948), p. 195.) Before the First World War the invaders of Britain bought rank in the peerage; now they just give it to one another.)


2. When Sir Martin Furnival Jones became Director General of MI5, he found that "very many members of Parliament were in contact with Soviet bloc intelligence officers." The nationality of those Members of Parliament was unstated, so you will have to guess whether most of them were Jews or Judaized Englishmen. But this opens an entirely new area of treason in Britain.

3. Lord Rothschild, long before Wright made any disclosures, was exercised by the danger of letting a man who knew so many vital secrets live in far-away Australia, where his silence could not be assured by hustling him off to Soviet-style imprisonment under the Official Secrets Act.

4. When a Member of Parliament, Jonathan Aitken, having been given information by the C.I.A., and having confirmed it by consulting two former members of MI5 and MI6, warned Maggie of the danger that Hollis's treason might be exposed, she snubbed him, and Rothschild tried to discourage further inquiry.

5. When the efforts to throttle Wright in Australia failed, Sir Michael Havers was "branded" (unjustly, according to Pincher) "as the most dishonorable Attorney General [in] this century," and Maggie promptly and blithely promoted him to Lord Chancellor.

All these details add up to something, don't they?

Pincher, although disputing one or two of Wright's statements, had to admit that Wright disclosed a mass of evidence that proved that "much treachery and incompetence inside both MI5 and MI6 had been concealed."

Admitting the truth of almost everything in Wright's book, Pincher tries to prove that it should have been suppressed, and his argument merits notice. In 1985, an agent of MI6, Oleg Gordievsky, who had attained high rank in the Soviet KGB, was "spirited out of Russia" when the KGB began to suspect that he was a double agent, and if a man who knows the details of this operation were to write a book about it, he "could make millions" but would probably "threaten the lives" of some of MI6's spies who are still in the Soviet Union and unsuspected. That would be awful, wouldn't it? And it's got to be prevented.

That, mind you, is adduced as the reason why Wright's book, which deals with treason that took place in England many years ago and was covered up by more treason, should have been suppressed -- and why Maggie's government was justified in trying to protect Rothschild et al. from embarrassment by making every possible effort "to pursue Wright and his publisher to the limit of the law, depriving him of all profit, if possible." A man who tells the truth about the extent of treason in Britain is a "renegade" who must be given "relentless treatment." Pincher stops short of suggesting assassination.

The extracts from Pincher's forthcoming book published in the Sunday Express are clear evidence of frantic efforts to cover up and conceal from Englishmen the scabrous character of the alien government under which they have lived and suffered for decades. If a journalist who has presumably read Wright's book is correct, it proves that there were more than two hundred enemy agents, aliens or British traitors, ensconsed in British Military Intelligence during and following Britain's suicidal war against Germany.

Maggie's gang now has even greater woes. Publishers in Great Britain and the United States agreed that the stupid Aryans should not be permitted to learn the truth about the vicious old drunkard, Winston Churchill, who served as Roosevelt's patsy to destroy Germany, make the Soviet a world-power and supreme in Europe, and abolish the British Empire; they accordingly broke contracts to prevent the publication of David Irving's thoroughly documented study of Churchill's filthy and disgusting career. All other major publishers in both countries evidently agreed that the book should be suppressed, since truth is bad for Aryans. But the eminent historian found a publisher in wicked Australia, and no legal method is yet available to prevent copies of it from reaching England. (2)

(2. Copies of the first volume of Churchill's War are available in the United States from the Historical Review Press, P.O. Box 2010, Decatur, Georgia; $31.50 postpaid. The second and concluding volume is expected from Australia in the autumn of 1988.)



In a special article, "Tomorrow May Be Too Late," in April 1985 I drew attention to the historical problem created by a respected British physician, Dr. W. Hugh Thomas, whose book, The Murder of Rudolf Hess, was published with a commendatory introduction by Rebecca West, a novelist who has been commonly regarded as an authority on the secret operations of intelligence and espionage agencies since the publication in 1964 of The New Meaning of Treason. (3)

(3. On this book, see my immediately following article on "Rebecca West.")


There had always been some mystery about the aged man, said to be Rudolf Hess, whom the vicious victors held, a solitary prisoner, under inhuman conditions in the fortress of Spandau, with the most elaborate and expensive precautions to prevent his liberation. The first mystery was why they had not murdered him at the time that they tortured and murdered so many honorable and civilized men at Nuremberg and elsewhere. There was, of course, no question of compassion or justice. The Jews' janissaries had repudiated all the conventions by which civilized nations had tried to mitigate the horrors of war. The British and Americans had reverted to the primitive savagery of Apaches, making it the more odious by sophistication and hypocrisy.

Dr. Thomas produced an astonishing explanation. He reported that he had made a thorough physical examination of the prisoner and found on his body no trace of scars remaining from the wounds Rudolf Hess had suffered in the First World War -- scars which Mrs. Hess had seen on her husband. Thomas, furthermore, had used X-rays to examine the lungs, and had ascertained that the prisoner's lungs did not have the scar-tissue that would necessarily have marked the location of another wound suffered by Hess, according to the German military records. It followed, therefore, that the prisoner was not, could not be, Rudolf Hess.

For this fact Dr. Thomas accounted by an ingenious theory, which he supported by considerations that I summarized in my article. Hess, while on a solo flight, had been murdered by German traitors, and an agent who resembled Hess had flown to England, while Hitler was given a forged letter, purportedly left behind by Hess when he undertook to go to England to negotiate a peace. The coming of a 'double' who claimed to be Hess perplexed the British secret services, whose bizarre behavior was thus explained.

What Dr. Thomas told us as fact was amazing, but he reported observations about which no medical man could have been mistaken, and there was no apparent motive for mendacity.

It was quite obvious that, as I pointed out in my article and emphasized in a subsequent "Postscript," unless Dr. Thomas's report was verified or disproved by a team of eminent physicians whose neutrality could not be suspected, history would be burdened by another wildly debatable mystery as soon as Hess died and his body was, as planned, immediately cremated by the barbarians before anyone could see it.

A week after the announcement of Hess's death I wrote, under the rubric "Now It Is Too Late," a note that was eventually published in the issue of Liberty Bell for March 1988. In it, I tried to account for what had obviously been the murder of the aged and helpless man, and the strange departure from the official plan to cremate his body, which, instead, was taken to a hospital and Hess's widow and children were permitted to give the victim a conventional burial. There could, of course, be no suspicion that his inhuman jailers had been motivated by human sentiments. I advanced the most logical explanation that occurred to me in the circumstances.

Mr. Taylor in his article pointed out that at various times in the past the government of Little Britain had professed a willingness to release the prisoner, and that, as a matter of fact, the Russians had been willing to accede to that much of human decency; it was the Jews' United States that had always insisted on continuing the outrageous cruelty to the old man, while, with the hypocrisy and mendacity that one expects in Washington, blaming its Soviet allies.

The footnote to Mr. Taylor's article related the murder of Hess to a contemporary event that was made notorious by the press. As everyone knows, ever since the celebrated terrorist and murderer, Leib Bronstein, alias Trotsky, left Soviet territory in 1929, (4) it has been customary to disseminate, at intervals of a few years, the canard that the Communist régime in Russia has significantly changed or has "mellowed." This perennial device helps keep Aryan boobs confused, excites the childish minds of genuine "Liberal intellectuals," who never weary of their favorite nursery tales, and enables crypto-Communist agents and governments to continue the steady approximation of Western nations to the Soviet until the former can be merged with the latter.

(4. It is still uncertain whether Bronstein-"Trotsky" was expelled from Russia by Dzhugashvili-"Stalin" to rid himself of a rival, as is generally believed, or, as some men in American Intelligence were convinced, left Russia on a mission to confuse American (and other) dunderheads by providing them with an "anti-Stalinist" and more righteous brand of Bolshevik barbarism. The murder of the old terrorist in Mexico proves nothing, for by that time, when Stalin's attack on Germany was imminent, Trotsky had had to order his mutton-headed disciples to work for suddenly righteous Papa Stalin; and disposing of Trotsky was the only way to prevent the ploy from becoming obvious. Whichever explanation is correct, for many years the acrimonious and endless arguments between "Stalinist" and "Trotskyite" gabblers provided intelligent American observers with continuous amusement.)


As we all know, the old act was scheduled for another performance in 1987, and the titular boss of the Soviet came to the United States for a "summit meeting" with his American colleague, at which the plan to make the United States defenceless and helpless was advanced as much as seemed prudent at that time.

Mr. Taylor's article reported that Gorbachev intended to effect the release of the prisoner in Spandau, and that he did indeed so intend is certain, although, as Mr. Taylor reported, the Jews' stooges, who misgovern Germany from Bonn, forced the press to modify its report of his intention. The release of the prisoner would have been a brilliant stroke of propaganda: it would have commended Gorbachev to all decent-minded Aryans and acquired for him celebrity as a great humanitarian; this, in turn, would have greatly facilitated the further undermining of America at the "Summit" performance. It is hard to imagine why the Zionists or their agents in Washington would have objected to Gorbachev's bid for world-wide popularity, even though release of the prisoner alive would perhaps have enabled him to explain his long imprisonment and disclose the secret of his flight to England.

The article in the October issue of Die Bauernschaft gave a lucid and logical explanation of the murder of the prisoner; for the details, see the footnote to Mr. Taylor's article or, if you are fortunate enough to have a copy of the excellent German periodical, go directly to it. The important point is that Gorbachev's intention to release the prisoner, who was Rudolf Hess, excited panic in the government of Maggie Thatcher, which secretly had Hess murdered to avert the revelations he would make, if liberated while alive.

The explanation in Die Bauernschaft makes sense and even accounts for the odd fact that Hess's body was not secretly cremated and the murder concealed by an announcement that he had at last died a natural death, a story that no one would have questioned.

As the panic over Peter Wright's book makes patent, Maggie's gang is desperately afraid of the effect on the surviving English men of belated disclosures about the war in which Britain ruined herself. When the creatures who now rule Britain learned of Gorbachev's plan, they knew they could not veto it. Britain has reduced itself to the status of a country like Greece or Morocco, and it no longer has real influence in the counsels of the rulers of the United States and Soviet Russia, who are leaving Britain to rot in her own filth. A secret murder of Hess was the only alternative, and the arrangements for it were kept secret from the Russians, who would have prevented it rather than lose the anticipated triumph of propaganda, and kept secret from the "American" government until the murderers were at their stations and the necessary permission requested from the C.I.A. (and, of course, Mossad), who felt under no great obligation to enhance Gorbachev's prestige.

The foregoing account of the murder was given some corroboration by the pointed refusal of the Soviet to join in the announcement of the death of Hess and the hurriedly trumped-up explanation of it. Gorbachev was evidently vexed by the act that spoiled his planned gesture, which he had probably intended to associate with the Christmas that means so much to Christians.

Now this, of course, directly impugns the thesis of Dr. Thomas's book. Dr. Thomas's theory about the fate of Rudolf Hess has now been conclusively refuted. In the first volume of Churchill's War, which the enemies of our race were unable to suppress, the most eminent and trustworthy historian of the calamity called the Second World War has proved from incontrovertible documents that Rudolf Hess did indeed reach Britain, lured by British Intelligence with a treachery of which civilized nations and even prudent barbarians would have been incapable; that Hess did indeed bring an offer from Hitler of a peace that would have saved the British Empire and saved the British people from the demoralizing hardships, disasters, and great slaughter that prolongation of the war inflicted on them; and that Hess was arrested and held incommunicado at the order of Winston Churchill, the half-English drunkard, who had to conceal Hitler's generous offer from the British people in order to prolong the war, ruin England, and kill many men, women, and children to gratify his monstrous egotism and to earn his stipend from the Jews who had hired him.

That terrible truth is now out, and I do not see how Maggie and her band of chattering fantocci can conceal it from the British people. Their murder of Hess was therefore a futile crime. The only question now is whether there is left in England and Scotland enough intelligence and manhood to act in the light of truth about the cause of their present destitution.

There still remains, however, what Dr. Thomas alleged to be a fact.

In "Now It Is Too Late" I deplored the negligence or malice that would afflict future historians (if there are any) with a puzzle like that of the "Man in the Iron Mask." Though it now seems certain that the prisoner was Hess, that consequence will still be likely so long as Dr. Thomas's asseveration remains unrefuted. Historians who learn of it will use it to formulate ingenious theories to gratify their own vanity or to advance some cause dear to their hearts or their paymasters. They will argue that, as I have been assured by an expert in forensic medicine, even a half-competent physician could not have been mistaken in the observations Dr. Thomas reported, assuming, of course, that he was not intoxicated by alcohol or hallucinatory drugs.

It is now too late to examine the corpse of the prisoner, but we may still have a chance to avert historical doubts and arguments. It should not be too difficult to ascertain whether or not Dr. Thomas, a British physician stationed in Berlin, was an agent or employee of some British intelligence service and charged with the task of making the prisoner in Spandau seem less important than he was, of making it seem that he could not disclose information embarrassing to the British government, and of indirectly denying that Hitler had offered Britain a chance to save her honor and her empire.

This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine, published monthly by George P. Dietz from September 1973 to February 1999. For reprint information please write to Liberty Bell Publications, Post Office Box 21, Reedy WV 25270 USA.

Copyright ©2001 Kevin Alfred Strom.  Back to Revilo P. Oliver Index