• English Heritage as judged by its magazine. 2017-2023. Review by Rae West/Rerevisionist

Autumn/Winter 2023 magazine. This is all propaganda, but as usual the mainspring and source of all the problems is entirely concealed. It's the same old story and is now world-wide. Anyone with affection for English history & the desire to understand it must be warned.

Page 17 of the Autumn/Winter 2023 issue.

I looked up Dominique Bouchard online. She appears to come from New York and to have studied physics, but this probably means a made-for-girls discipline avoiding any real knowledge of physics. The same outlook as popularised, but not explained, by Janice Fiamengo.

There's a 'feminist' aspect to all this. Bouchard claims to have a wife, and has tried blue hair and pink hair—the illustration seems to be computer-drawn and the colour retouched. Her blurb mentioned ‘11 Sandford Awards for heritage education’, further investigation showing an almost uniform collection of girls and women.

She gives of course no information on Jewish links, but the pattern is a familiar one to those of us looking into Jewish issues. Jewish 'feminism' which ignores the plight of many girls, and the continual Jewish historical deceptions—long ingrained into 'Judaic' psyches—are familiar to us.

An interesting aspect to the magazine portion of Jewish ownership & control is the convergence of magazines into uniformity which is barely noticed, though it should be. (I've made the same point about the British Mensa magazine, which has similar characteristics—grey ink, probably to avoid carbon particles, but not very readable; large space-filling illustrations, as here; banal content provided by what's called 'artificial intelligence', meaning conventional blocks of text with conventional Jew-approved content. There is discontent with this sort of pap, but most readers cannot understand the reasons for it, and thus merely carp and moan uselessly.

English Heritage (in fact, the 'English' part post-dates Rome), she says, or quotes, became a charity in 2015. There are problems with charities: UK Charities are permitted to refuse Freedom of Information requests. And they are legally allowed only to make payments out of interest earned. When interest rates are low, they hang on to their money.
If you, reader, happen to own any sort of historically significant material, I hope you will read the small print and contact other portions of this organisation. Especially if it is controversial, such as Civil War memoirs, or Bank of England information, or material on the Rothschilds and Waterloo, or on financing of wars. Please be careful. Your heritage might vanish or be taken up by crowds of unintelligent girls or scheming males. Watch for the mixed-race intrusions which Jews love, for other people.

I have blacked out the P.R. name of their scheme; after all, they censor anything they don't like.

A painful but typical set of events is the rather pitiful use of the word 'creatives' for people who have to be told they are 'creative', when in fact they are directed into the approved lines. It's a standard Judaic fraud. Witness the 'Holocaust' education which parents and taxpayer and loans foist on publics around the world.
The example here. ‘... sweeping saga of Black (her caps) prisoners-of-war held through slavery and revolution’ illustrates the point. Bouchard says ‘We don't hide from the complex and contested elements of our [sic] history.’ But of course this is untrue: Where are the Jewish ship owners? Where are the facts about the Bank of England and poverty caused by the Jewish victory in England? Why has the story of British ships been made to vanish? What about support by Jews of wars which they avoided?

Even her casual comments reveal indifference to the truth. She seems to think people only lived, worked, or worshipped at sites—the realities of planning and technique and design don't interest her. 'Worship' is a long-term evasion, used for centuries as a bogus explanation. It's of course part of the Judaic imposition of their absurd fiction. It's in a similar conceptually mistaken space to 'cave men'.

This is just a short comment. I hope others will be moved to act, if they aren't yet. All this is not new; vast swathes of historical fact have been swept away, and this process is very likely to continue. Maybe we can slow it down.

Here's an extract from a US comment (which 'jank willie' had to pay for) redirecting criticism from all women to specifically Jewish women: jank willie says: October 21, 2023 at 4:07 pm

““Women are already in charge almost wherever you look...”
What a crank. A more accurate picture ... is JEWISH WOMEN are in charge almost wherever you look. And who was it that proliferated the feminist psyop stench that has permeated every aspect of society today? JEWISH WOMEN.
I got into an argument about this ..., and got banned by the ceo jewess yack-a-reno. I filed an appeal which was denied by a skimp called ginsberg, so I decided to write my jewess congresswoman filler-corn, because the ban affected by livelihood, all to no avail. I wonder who got the idea it was just “women” running the show here. This is misinfo. This is psyops. This is an act of war. ...”

Rae West 21 Oct 2023

Summer 2023 magazine. Cover design (right) shows Bolsover Castle, with an entertainer.

'Tom Fool' says he purveys mirth and fun. I doubt whether the middle ages knew of paraffin and spitting it through fire. But there was a serious purpose behind the fool; not just the Yorick type, infinite of jest. But—and the only person I remember putting this view, Prof C N Parkinson—the fool was allowed to point things out that the castle's hierarchical summit occupiers might not like. Parkinson claims they performed a valuable function, which is easy to believe. 'English Heritage' knows nothing of this, and substitutes pranks and silliness.
Bolsover Castle is an impressive piece of work; note the flat-faced stonework, the elegant detailing, the window openings. English Heritage prefers architecture as a spectator sport and seems to have no-one able to describe the fine points of interior design. I find this rather painful; stone buildings seem rather uncommon around the world—many 'cultures' such as most of Africa having none. Probably masons, architects, people who built scaffolding, people who arranged kitchens and chimneys and roofs, those who had to do with water and cleaning and lavatorial functions, people breeding and training and housing horses, were specialised groups with long traditions. English Heritage knows nothing of this. Instead, we have the Jewish-style assumption that such things will naturally appear if instructed, or paid.

My personal guess is that Freemasons, as a secret and organised group financially controlled by Jews, and arranged in the Jewish 'Kahal' style of two classes, slowly appeared or emerged, based on the great and irreplaceable value of such people. To this day Freemasonry has a hierarchy of ranks, though this can be ascended effortlessly by select elite members. But this is after the constructions have been constructed, not before. And is opposed to the 'slash and burn' style of society with impermanent timber structures and open land.
I'd guess that English Heritage deals with structures that are considered of little value, in contrast to the National Trust, which handles such buildings as have residual value. Much of the National Trust must have to try to deal with buildings which even in their own day were precarious and overstretched and higher risk than would have been accepted without sales pressure.

List of obscure people & organisations in control of English Heritage. Helps explain why nothing is known of the people around Stonehenge.

Leafing through the magazine is a depressing experience. Apparently aimed at a supposedly childish level, we find articles on Hallowe'en as a matter of US-style pumpkins and 'witches' and cobwebs. All Hallows Eve was traditionally something like a shadowy ancestor-worship, or perhaps a version of a one-minute silence to contemplate death and past times, probably converted into the Christian attitude of resurrection. We also have a piece on 'most haunted' houses—Bolsover Castle winning the prize. There's an article on Japan and stonehenge; it seems Japan has stone monuments too. But inspection of this piece reveals they have nothing like stonehenge, but only arrangements of small stones in circles.
Rather saddening stuff.

English Heritage's 60-ish-page Quarterly Magazine Review by 'Rerevisionist' May 2017 and later

Browsing Youtube videos, as one does, a young Ukrainian wife showed us around her town, assuring us it is peaceful and family-friendly, and likes tourists. She referred to a famine monument, and said "Mmmmm—it was something to do with religion". Victors not only write history, but shape historical perceptions and monuments.

English Heritage Members' Magazine illustrates the process. It's published by Immediate Media Co. ('Content. Passion. engagement.'), presumably part of some Jewish publishing conglomerate. About ten of their workers are listed, with titles of the (capitalised) Editor, Director, and Manager type. We also have about eight contributors, some of whom are credited with assembling the longer articles. And there are six names, 'For English Heritage'.

English Heritageis a registered charity, 1140351 (Aims & activities The English Heritage Trust promotes the conservation and enhancement of Historic England's properties and collections as well as promoting public knowledge, enjoyment and education...). And a registered company, 07447221. Its abc (i.e. circulation) for 2016 is given as about 395,000 print (not digital)—whatever that means—'circulation' is not the same as printed (and sold) copies. It appears not to be heavily advertised, sharing in the general decline of printed news.

For my taste, the magazine is purged of financial content: their contracts must include material on ownership of properties and leases, reversions to families, sales of products, tickets etc which might be of some interest. Their brief seems to be mostly buildings, or parts of buildings, and what might be referred to unkindly as ruins, though these appear to include Stonehenge—something of a fake, now—and other important sites. The National Trust seems to be mainly imposing buildings, and, in view of the colossal subsidies to some landowners, there is some suspicion of advantageous secretive deals.

My principal dislike is what might be called the overwhelmingly 'politically correct' content, doing nothing to promote public knowledge. I'll give here an expandable list of problems:
• A Woman in a jousting suit of specially-made armour illustrates the rather absurd 'politically correct' content. Another is a struggle for wall-mounted blue plaques, for blacks and Asians! And there's a constant wariness of immigrants, invaded by invitation of Jews, who seem to have little interest in English or any other history.
• Many aspects of English history are elided away: Evidence of the two Empires (including North America) is barely mentioned. Nothing much of shipbuilders, navigators, sailors who once spent their lives sailing around the world. Many industrial revolution sites (Wigan Pier, anyone?) and fishing and farming seem under-represented; instead we have a servants-eye view of bits of Great Houses, of the Pitkin Illustrated Guide sort.
• Church history is shown as ruins with little feel for the politics and power struggles. In the issue I have in front of me, Cuthbert of an Anglo-Saxon monastery, or perhaps later a Priory, seems to have been demoted and then promoted. Hints of how Jewish scribblings were made a power bloc are missing.
• Stonehenge has a special mention in March 2020. No mention of a 'renovation' in which stones were moved by cranes, and concrete used, I think in the 1920s.
• The world wars are shown from a childish pro-Jewish viewpoint. No exhibits showing British-supported mass killings in Jewish USSR, for example.
• Let's look at specific Jewish issues. Just a few:
(1) Many issues, including wars, with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland had Jew intervention.
(2) An article on the 'Second Anglo-Dutch War' (date given as 1666) says nothing about the so-called Bank of England, invented of course by Amsterdam Jews.
(3) Clifford's Tower in York: 'We that the present visit ... Doesn't do justice to the site's important and tragic history..'. It's best known for an influx of Jews, but not best known for the reasons.
(4) Similarly, monuments such as 'Little St Hugh' in Lincoln have not been restored.
(5) Jack the Ripper's predations as far as I know are suppressed—a long tradition of keeping mum about Jews and the East End of London.
(6) Jewish 'race' and separatist education is not as far as I know shown in any museum anywhere.
(7) Now I think of it, primitive Kosher and/or Muslim slaughterhouses might count as 'English heritage'.
• The Second World War and Jewish victory provide endless scope for gawping without analysis: white cliffs, tunnels, emplacements of many types, free gifts for Stalin, dead pilots. It is now known that Germans were tortured in 'the cage' in London; Hess was jailed and killed; a few Britons were imprisoned under Section 18B; propaganda was printed, filmed, and broadcast. Foreigners were blockaded; and so on. Sites may remain which could be made suitable for visitors.
• Great country houses were funded by many means, including the Jewish-run East India Company, and by Jewish money from forcing opium into China, and from killing Boers to get gold. But the presentation of such houses is in the style of romantic novels.
• Castles are treated in the same sort of way, without consideration of Cromwell's Jew-funded cannon against the English, wars with Wales, whatever.
• Gunpowder, Firearms: Note that the long conquest of India by the East India Company and others depended largely on firearms, but all this is suppressed. However, of course Jews benefited from Cromwell, so of course the use of cannon is smiled upon.

Anyway, more in sorrow than anger... I wonder if a time will ever come when true English history is on open display?

[Added Aug 2018] The October 2017 issue has a 'past lives' piece on Karl Marx in London. It's a straightforward parroting of the usual rubbish. Marx is now known to have been part of the super-rich industrialist group. Here's a good piece on Marx: mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf partly on Trier, partly (the second half) on Marx. A house in London had a blue plaque as far back as 1935. It's irritating to find barefaced lies repeated in so-called English Heritage.

I looked at July 2017's issue; even with padding the magazine gets ever-thinner. It has 6 pages (42-47) on films partly show in 'historic sites', including Victoria and Abdul, Wonder Woman, Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Mummy, and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. And 4 pages (30-33) on another film, Dunkirk, more trash. There's a page on 'Shakespeare's Birthplace'. And a couple of conservation pieces, on Osborne Palace and Framlingham Castle, though the full expenses/tourist figures are suppressed. It's all very sad. But the long-established English tradition, if it can be called that, telling lies about so-called 'Jews', is maintained.