H&D Issue 86 published

The new issue (#86) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is now out. The 26 page, September – October 2018 issue, has as its lead.

State Prosecutors Fail in National Action Terror Trial.

Issue 86

September – October 2018.

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Old Bailey Terror Trial – NA activists jailed after ‘MP murder plot’: Police chief and ‘anti-fascists’ hype up conspiracy – by Peter Rushton
  • Book Review: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil – by Gerard Menuhin – reviewed by Dr James Thring
  • Britain’s Secret Files on Nationalist Leader Colin Jordan – Part V (final) – by Peter Rushton
  • The Five Monkeys Problem – Simon Sheppard on how the media functions as a weapon of mass destruction
  • Double Candour Book Review: Hidden Government – by John Creagh Scott – reviewed by Maleficus Johnson; and Common Market Suicide – by A.K. Chesterton – reviewed by George Halls
  • The British People – Which Way Now? – by Max Musson
  • Movie Review: Maze – covering the 1983 IRA prison escape – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
  • Two pages of readers’ letters
  • Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton

If you would like 2 sample copies please send £5.00 /$10.00 or for a years (6 issues) subscription, send £26.00 (UK) – $48.00 (USA) – £35.00/$48.00 (Rest of world).

RIP: Ken Booth and Stephen Mitford Goodson

The H&D team was very sad to learn of the deaths of two old friends and comrades in recent weeks.

Ken Booth of Newcastle, leading organiser for NF, BNP and British Democrats

Ken Booth, for years one of the most active nationalists in North East England, died from cancer on 17th July aged 65. Ken served in senior positions with the National Front, British National Party and British Democratic Party. Ken leaves eleven children, the youngest aged 7. His talents in leaflet design and branch organisation made racial nationalism the main challenger to Labour hegemony in many parts of the North East, and it is tragic to reflect on how much more he could have achieved had our movement not been blighted by factional division since the millennium.

Stephen Mitford Goodson addressing H&D‘s 2013 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston.

Stephen Mitford Goodson, a frequent H&D contributor and a former director of the South African Reserve Bank, died on 4th August aged 70. While we knew that Ken Booth had been seriously ill, Stephen’s death came as a shock: his last contribution to our magazine will appear in the November issue. Stephen Mitford Goodson was a relentless and well-informed critic of the global financial elite and a contributing editor of The Barnes Review. His work serialised in H&D included biographies of two very different South African leaders, Gen. Jan Christian Smuts and Dr Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd.

RIP Ken and Stephen: we shall remember your courage and commitment as we continue the struggle.

Left-wing trust accused of funding terror-linked ‘charity’

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, funded by the famous Quaker chocolate family, is being investigated for donations to a charity in Northern Ireland which has been linked to dissident republican terrorism.

JRCT has given substantial grants over the years to the ‘anti-fascist’ organisations Searchlight and Hope not Hate. The latest controversy involves two sets of donations in Northern Ireland. Since 2014 the Trust has made regular grants to Teach na Failte, founded by the Irish Republican Socialist Party, political wing of the brutal terror gang Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). Teach na Failte even shares an office with the IRSP in Falls Road, Belfast. IRSP has close connections to the violent anti-fascist group ‘Red Action’, scrutinised last weekend by the Sunday Times.

In 2014 the Rowntree Trust gave Teach na Failte £149,915 followed by a further grant of £125,000 in 2017.

Other controversial donations by the Rowntree Trust involve a housing charity Conflict Resolution Services Ireland, whose Belfast offices have twice been raided by police investigating ties to the dissident republican terrorist group Oglaigh na hEireann, a splinter group from the Real IRA which was itself a breakaway from the IRA.

The chairman of trustees at CRSI, Gerry Ruddy, is on record describing the INLA’s murder of Conservative MP Airey Neave in 1979 as “a legitimate exercise”.

Gerry Ruddy, a leading official of the IRSP, political front for the INLA who murdered Airey Neave and many others, is chairman of the CRSI ‘charity’ trustees.

Earlier investigations of CRSI have suggested that (unlike Teach na Failte) it is not a straightforward front for hardline republicans linked to terrorism. CRSI’s situation is more complicated. There are allegations that it has worked to move people up the queue for local authority housing in Ulster in a racket helping to manufacture supposed ‘threats’ from paramilitaries (both republican and loyalist), and that not only the various IRA splinter groups but also drug dealers shamefully using the banner of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) have been involved in this corrupt abuse of publicly funded housing.

According to the Belfast Telegraph, official investigations involve not only CRSI but a government-funded service called ‘Base 2’ which ostensibly helps families to be rehoused if they have been threatened. Working at the CRSI’s Belfast office is Sean O’Reilly, once given a 30-month jail sentence for his role in a botched ‘punishment shooting’ on behalf of a republican terror gang.

 

Corbyn and the uses of ‘anti-fascism’

The cover of Red Action’s journal boasts of RA/AFA leader Patrick Hayes terrorist role

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

So H&D readers will have been surprised to see an article yesterday by the Sunday Times‘ star reporter Andrew Gilligan, belatedly drawing attention to the real terrorists of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ and its core group ‘Red Action’.

AFA’s magazine Fighting Talk frequently advertised its violent tactics

None of the information will be news to our readers, since we have reported aspects of this story several times over the years. The best mainstream investigation remains a BBC programme broadcast almost five years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn was a particularly close friend of IRA / Sinn Fein during the 1980s, as was his then-ally Ken Livingstone. As we reported, Livingstone’s ties to the IRA almost led to his assassination by London-based Ulster Loyalists in 1993.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

(left to right) Ken Livingstone, Sinn Fein – IRA godfather Gerry Adams, and Jeremy Corbyn in London, 1983

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

Andrew Gilligan, author of yesterday’s Sunday Times exposé of ‘anti-fascist’ terrorism, seen (above right) accepting an award from former Prime Minister David Cameron

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

Cyril Radcliffe (later Lord Radcliffe), Director-General of Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information

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

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

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

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

Radcliffe’s letter to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken in May 1943 about “anti-Semitism” among British civilians during the Second World War

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

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

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

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

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (seen above right with his mentor Winston Churchill) was the recipient of a newly-revealed letter discussing propaganda strategies for dealing with ordinary Britons’ negative perceptions of Jews.

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

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

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

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

 

‘Antifascist’ confusion over bookshop attack – UKIP suspends three activists

Times of Israel columnist Sharon Klaff (second left) handing in a pro-Zionist petition at Downing St. On Saturday Ms Klaff was accused of being part of a gang attacking a Central London bookshop.

Britain’s largest leftwing bookshop was attacked by a dozen Zionist thugs on Saturday evening, leading the United Kingdom Independence Party to suspend three prominent activists allegedly involved.

Bookmarks (on Bloomsbury St in central London) is linked to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Britain’s largest Trotskyist organisation. While several ‘socialist’ bookshops have also acted as headquarters for violent groups associated with IRA terrorism and ‘antifascist’ gangsterism, there is no such particular connection with Bookmarks. Unlike (for example) Red Action or AFA, the SWP and its various front organisations couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.

The shop was therefore a soft target for the fake patriots of ‘Make Britain Great Again’, led by a Thatcherite Tory called Luke Nash-Jones, who was once President of the Conservative Association at Birkbeck College, London, but is now in UKIP.

MBGA is on the intellectually-challenged, ultra-Zionist wing of the ‘Alt Right’ – obsessed with Islam and natural cheerleaders for Donald Trump and EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’.

On Saturday evening a dozen MBGA activists made their way to Bloomsbury after a demonstration in support of online conspiracy theorist Alex Jones whose pages have recently been deleted by Facebook and other platforms following the usual ‘hate speech’ circus. For some reason Nash-Jones and his gang thought that throwing their weight around in a bookshop would help the ‘anti-censorship’ case. Even more bizarrely, they thought it was a good idea to post video of the attack on their own YouTube channel. (This was soon taken down when someone belatedly engaged their brain, but by then it had been copied by MBGA’s leftwing opponents.)

UKIP executive member Elizabeth Jones (seen above right with Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani) was suspended after an attack on Central London shop Bookmarks last Saturday.

Easily identified among the gang outside the bookshop was a member of UKIP’s national executive Elizabeth Jones, who was a candidate for the party leadership in 2016. Ms Jones stood for UKIP in Bermondsey & Old Southwark at last year’s general election, but today was suspended from the party alongside Nash-Jones and a third UKIP activist Martin Costello, who was parliamentary candidate for South Swindon last year. Mr Costello has also served as a special police constable in Wiltshire.

Ms Jones claimed only to have been outside the shop not part of the attack. Also identified by numerous ‘antifascists’ was South African born Zionist Sharon Klaff, who has a regular column on the Times of Israel website.

Had real British nationalists attacked leftwing premises in this way, there would have been ‘anti-terrorist’ police raids across the country within 24 hours. Not to mention had any of us dared to enter a Jewish bookshop and engage in such thuggery. London Forum organiser Jez Turner is presently serving a prison sentence for an entirely peaceful speech in Whitehall: what sentence would he have got for attacking a bookshop?

Sadly the price for Saturday’s attack is likely to be paid by sensible, peaceful British nationalists whose meetings will be attacked in ‘reprisals’: not from the women and pensioners whom Nash-Jones likes to confront, but by the militant ‘antifa’ squads who ironically were expelled from the SWP decades ago.

UPDATE: Sharon Klaff now denies that she was present during the bookshop attack, but the ‘antifascist’ website Hope not Hate claims she was there: whom should one believe given such an unpalatable choice?

UPDATE 2: Hope not Hate has now withdrawn its allegation against Sharon Klaff – smears, denials and counter-smears continue to circulate among embarrassed ‘antifascists’ and Zionists!

Sarah Archibald of Hope not Hate fingers Klaff for bookshop attack

 

Dog eat dog: Klaff threatens ‘antifascists’ with defamation action

 

Sharon Klaff, allegedly part of the Nash-Jones gang on Saturday, seen here (second right) with fellow ultra-Zionists Paul Besser (a Britain First activist); Ambrosine Shitrit; Gemma Sheridan and Jonathan Hoffman.

 

Call for Jewish Labour MPs to split from party after Corbyn ‘antisemitism’ row

 

In H&D Issue 84 we speculated as to how far the Jewish lobby in the UK would be prepared to push their disagreement with Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Now we know.

Earlier this week the senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge (née Oppenheimer), who is probably best known to H&D readers for defeating Nick Griffin in her Barking constituency at the 2010 General Election, confronted her party leader at the entrance to the House of Commons and called him an “antisemite” and a “racist”. Several press reports stated that Dame Margaret had added an Anglo-Saxon epithet.

A day later, Blairite backbencher John Woodcock resigned from the Labour Party: he will now sit as an independent MP.

Both Dame Margaret and Mr Woodcock were responding to the Labour leadership’s refusal to adopt the full “working definition” of “antisemitism” devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Quite rightly, Corbyn and his allies felt that the IHRA’s definition demonised a wide range of anti-Zionism as “antisemitism”.

Senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge launched a four-letter tirade at her leader Jeremy Corbyn this week, accusing him of ‘antisemitism’

The IHRA is the new name for the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research set up in 1998 on the initiative of then Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. This Task Force was behind the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, which issued infamous “Guidelines” for teachers in 2000, stating that schools had a responsibility to combat “Holocaust denial” and that in doing so: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers … or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

This anti-debate, anti-rational organisation now presumes to dictate not only to schools but to the leadership of political parties!

Today’s latest move is the boldest yet: the Jewish Chronicle has the chutzpah to demand in its front page article that Jewish Labour MPs should break away from the party en masse and create a separate parliamentary group.

Two of the Jewish Labour MPs whom the JC is asking to break away from the Party are Ruth Smeeth (above left) and Luciana Berger (above right)

H&D understands that (depending on one’s definition of Jewish) there are eight Jewish Labour MPs: Luciana Berger (Liverpool Wavertree); Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside); Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East); Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking); Ivan Lewis (Bury South); Ed Miliband (Doncaster North); Ruth Smeeth (Stoke North); Alex Sobel (Leeds North West). One or two of these would be most unlikely to associate with any breakaway, but it’s easy to imagine non-Jews such as Mr Woodcock, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and John Mann getting on board.

The JC are however playing a dangerous game in asking MPs to put their Jewish identity (or their non-Jewish Zionism) ahead of their other presumed political loyalties. If Corbyn were eventually to be succeeded by a Zionist, would we see calls for Muslim Labour MPs to stage a similar breakaway? (Incidentally there are now twelve Muslim Labour MPs – the first time in history that the Parliamentary Labour Party has had more Muslims than Jews – but only one of them has ever expressed seriously anti-Zionist views.)

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

VIDEO: New police raid during latest thought-crime trial in Munich of Canadian-Germans Monika and Alfred Schaefer

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika (while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery. Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe. The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict’ then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence. How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical sceptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”? During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, I have personally witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Planck Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients. Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz (Scientist of Law); Attorney Wolfram Nahrath (Monika Schaefer’s counsel); Attorney Frank Miksch (Alfred’s counsel); Alfred Schaefer (Defendant); Lady Renouf (press correspondent for The Barnes Review and American Free Press)

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schöffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a farcical “Muppet Show”. (I concur for, in The Great Muppet Caper movie, I act as role-model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!)

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full. The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in Alice in Wonderland wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”. The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness” but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.

No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary yo the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik! Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Udo Walendy, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höfs, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few. Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, Michèle Renouf at Munich Courthouse moments before the Schaufer sibling’s trial for Volksverhetzung/populace incitement para 130

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 1, AFTERNOON SESSION Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.

Monika Schaefer achieved her common-sense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over! Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister. At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal “ criminal” events. By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings.

The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.
Michèle Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 2, AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.

This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a) who was taken yesterday into police custody is over for the time being. After today’s session he will be permitted to return home. Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “ Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).

Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias against the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, are but two of the ‘contrariwise’ obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry. These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese-protected exceptionalism.


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018

Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised policewoman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”). Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published in ca. 1976 which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber. The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?”

Before court prooceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law. The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this. Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).

During the morning session it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives. The Process, as public gallery eyewinesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastened her (whose name we are not told) not Nahrath.

Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom. Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences – for instance, how his doctor brothers acted to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity – a formidable opponent to those who rely for their identity on a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences. For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-Keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!

Alfred Schaefer and Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz see each freed after being taken from the courtroom under police custody!

Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukeller beer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom. Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been, unexpectedly, freed. Having committed no actual harm (i.e. no crime which is an act not a thought!) whatever, why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope for this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.

As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had travelled in the same police transfer van to the prison though they had little chance to speak owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika”!

At the close today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate. Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” Telling Film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.

This week’s 4 days’ trial sessions will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden; and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on that key to Germany’s sovereignty, that graspable cornerstone.

“No surrender”!
Michèle Renouf

——————————————————-

Friday afternoon update, July 6th

Greetings all: today at 2pm at the home of Alfred Schaefer he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters re his videos he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom …and then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my Laptop …and so I went to wash my hands.

I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was as if one were suddenly in a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! At first I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood 2 armed officers awaiting me.

I handed over my passport; they said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw 5 of them handcuff my host.

Taking with him the little packed cheese lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband, Alfred was hauled away for reasons the police declined to explain to me. Possibly it was about something he had perhaps said when yesterday he had duly turned up at the police station, as he has to do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. His wife advised that I and HH should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure.

Vot a business. Cat and mouse – but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each retrieved the cheese!

 

The Inquisition of Alfred and Monika Schaefer – Part 1 from NS VIKING on Vimeo.

New archive for British ‘alt-right’ heritage

A newly launched online archive ‘Roots of Radicalism’ contains vital resources on the ideological heritage of our movement.

This website will be regularly updated and extended: it presently contains thirty articles from the British nationalist magazine Vanguard, first published during 1986/1987.

The site’s founders write:

The term ‘alt-right’ has become widely used in recent years. It does not describe a single, monolithic ideology, but rather a spectrum of related ideas and values. However, it can be said that the alt-right generally:

  • Recognises the positive values of group identities, nationalities and ethnicities;
  • Is prepared to unflinchingly challenge the dominant values of the liberal consensus, including the obsessive egalitarianism of the left;
  • Is not materialistic, and does not think that economic growth is the solution to every problem;
  • Does not believe itself to be on the same side as global capitalism – this, more than anything else, distinguishes the ‘alternative right’ from the conventional right.

Mainstream media commentators, blinkered by years of liberal orthodoxy, have tended to regard the alt-right as a disturbing, new phenomenon. We hope they are right to be disturbed, but they are wrong if they think that the ‘alt-right’ is new: its roots go back a long way, long before the term ‘alt-right’ had ever been thought of.

This website looks at the British contribution to this dissident political heritage, and – when finished – will include hundreds of articles from a wide variety of sources, from independent thinkers to those supporting nationalistic political parties.

As you will see these articles do not represent a single ‘party line’. The writers used a variety of different terms to describe themselves: not ‘alt-right’ but radical right or new right. Indeed many would have rejected the term ‘right-wing’ altogether, believing that they were trying to create an alternative to the existing, conventional Left-Right dichotomy and not wanting to be confused with the capitalist right. Such people generally used terms like ‘radical nationalist’ or ‘ethnic nationalist’ to describe themselves. Needless to say, the political Left used rather different terms, of varying degrees of ranting hysteria…

We believe, however, that the content of their writings are more significant than the labels attached to them. What these writers have in common is that they cared about Britain and the British people and tried to show that there is an alternative to the conventional ‘-isms’ of capitalism, liberalism, socialism or communism.

We hope you find this website to be a useful resource. It is our intention to add about thirty articles a month to the site, so please bookmark us, and visit us again from time to time. If there are worthy publications, authors and articles you feel we have overlooked please contact us and let us know – we make no claims to omniscience!

The archive is online now at www.rootsofradicalism.com

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter