Scottish justice or “due deference” to French-Zionist lobby? The Reynouard case hangs in the balance
On 21st September, a Scottish Crown prosecutor asked an Edinburgh court to show “due deference to France” and extradite a man who is accused of no crime under Scottish law. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton reports from the court. This article and related material also appears at Peter’s Real History blog and now also in Spanish by clicking on this link.
The revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard was appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for a full hearing of his extradition case. This was almost exactly ten months after his arrest in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther, where Vincent had been working quietly as a private tutor and completing his most important historical revisionist work concerning the so-called “massacre” at Oradour.
He was arrested in a raid by Scottish police, working with Scotland Yard detectives, at the request of French prosecutors who wish to jail him for revisionist videos concerning both Oradour and the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.
None of these revisionist works contravenes Scottish or English law, but the UK authorities were heavily lobbied by the Jewish charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and by the ultra-Zionist peer Lord Austin (formerly Ian Austin MP).
The sheer absurdity of this situation – the criminalisation of a scholar – was brought home to me by two incidents (one trivial, one serious) at the Edinburgh Court while waiting for Vincent’s case to be heard.
A sticker for the Edinburgh branch of the St Pauli supporters’ club was displayed in the lavatory at the Court. Supporters of St Pauli (a football club based in Hamburg) are notorious worldwide for their violent ‘anti-fascism’ and Marxism. It is impossible to imagine that a sticker promoting any violent ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ group (from, for example, supporters of a club such as Lazio, Chelsea, Millwall or Oldham) would have been allowed to remain on display at a court!
The other incident was more serious. Vincent’s case was being heard in a courtroom that specialises in extradition, which of course meant that more than two hours were taken up (before Vincent’s case began) by a long procession of procedural, pre-trial discussions of a range of unconnected defendants, including alleged gangsters from Eastern Europe.
By far the most serious of these procedural discussions involved a defendant appearing by video link. This was the notorious ‘Real IRA’ terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy (aka Anton Duffy), who in 2015 was jailed for 17 years for conspiracy to murder two ex-UDA members (Johnny Adair and Sam ‘Skelly’ McCrory) exiled in Scotland after their expulsion from the UDA.
Duffy is still serving this sentence in a top-security Scottish jail, but he is also now wanted by police and prosecutors in the Irish Republic, to face charges of murdering Denis Donaldson, an MI5 agent inside the IRA, who was killed in 2006. This is why Duffy was appearing on the same day as Vincent, in the Edinburgh extradition court.
H&D cannot yet comment on the latest specific charges – but it is beyond dispute (based on earlier convictions and years of police and MI5 covert surveillance) that Duffy is one of the UK’s most dangerous terrorists. Extradition procedures are designed for those accused of actual crimes: yet this week in Edinburgh (and in fact for the past ten months) Vincent Reynouard – a scholar, not a criminal – has been subjected to these same procedures.
As we have also seen with persistent abuse of the Terrorism Act by the UK authorities, those who simply seek to tell the truth about European history are persecuted by UK authorities who choose to follow the instructions of shadowy international lobbyists rather than UK law.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to be optimistic about Vincent’s case. He was very ably represented by his solicitor Paul Dunne and advocate Fred Mackintosh KC (who also practices as a barrister in England). It should of course be emphasised that Vincent’s defence is (rightly and properly) based on legal arguments, not on his historical and political views per se. As in any other such case, it should not be inferred that either Mr Dunne or Mr Mackintosh is in any way sympathetic to Vincent’s opinions, or indeed that either of them have any views or expertise on historical or political matters. They are experts on extradition law, not on historical revisionism or national socialism.
Due to Vincent having already spent ten months in jail (for something that isn’t even a crime in the UK!) the initial French warrant has been discharged.
This initial warrant was based on his having already been convicted and sentenced (in his absence) by a Parisian court. But he is no longer extraditable on those grounds, because that sentence has (in effect) already been served in Scotland, while Vincent awaited this extradition hearing.
Having dealt with the discharge of the first warrant, Mr Mackintosh proceeded to address the second.
Since it involves new charges (rather than a prior conviction) the ‘ticklist’ of the old European Arrest Warrant (now operating in revised form post-Brexit) doesn’t apply. Mr Mackintosh therefore pointed out that the traditional extradition principle of “dual criminality” operates in this case.
In other words, the Edinburgh Court must be satisfied that the conduct of which Vincent is accused would potentially be criminal in Scotland as well as in France.
The judge should (Mr Mackintosh continued) draw inferences as to Vincent’s “intent”, by looking at his overall conduct, and by studying the entire transcripts of his videos, not merely accepting the prosecutors’ interpretation of certain phrases taken out of context.
He highlighted one video, on which the prosecutors had based a large part of their case, and emphasised that the judge should study the full translated transcript carefully. This was a video published on 22nd February 2020, whose title translates as “The Jewish Problem – what solution?”
Vincent’s counsel did not dispute that his videos contain what has been termed “Holocaust denial”, that some of them address the “Jewish problem”, and that one in particular “denies” the historicity of the “Oradour massacre”.
But Mr Mackintosh’s central argument as to why Vincent should not be extradited began with a judgment in 2015 by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland.
The relevant aspect of this judgment (which involved a Turkish political activist accused of “denying” the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War), is that the European Court spelled out the very different laws among European states regarding “denial” of genocide.
Among those European countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court noted:
“there are now essentially four types of regimes in this domain, in terms of scope of the offence of genocide denial: (a) States, such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania, that only criminalise the denial of the Holocaust or more generally of Nazi crimes (Romania in addition criminalises the Nazi extermination of the Roma, and Greece criminalises, on top of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes, the denial of genocides recognised by an international court or its own Parliament); (b) States, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, that criminalise the denial of Nazi and communist crimes; (c) States, such as Andorra, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland, that criminalise the denial of any genocide (Lithuania in addition specifically criminalises denial of Soviet and Nazi crimes vis-à-vis the Lithuanians, but Cyprus only criminalises the denial of genocides recognised as such by a competent court); and (d) States, such as Finland, Italy, Spain (following the 2007 judgment of its Constitutional Court cited in paragraph 96 above), the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian States, that do not have special provisions criminalising such conduct.”
The European Court was clear, Mr Mackintosh said, that the UK had not chosen to make any form of “Holocaust denial” a specific criminal offence.
He added that in Vincent Reynouard’s case, the prosecution therefore had to satisfy the Scottish court that Vincent’s conduct (as alleged in the extradition warrant) met the test either for a S.127 Communications Act offence, or a breach of the peace (a common law offence).
The question of what behaviour can constitute a “breach of the peace” under Scottish law has been revised several times during recent decades – and is a matter on which Mr Mackintosh has special expertise, having for example written an article for Scottish Legal News on this very topic.
Such conduct must be serious enough to “cause alarm to ordinary people”, and it must “threaten serious disturbance to the community”. The relevant judgment was delivered in 2014 by Lady Clark of Calton, and Mr Mackintosh said that Lady Clark had reminded the lower courts that “for conduct to be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm there has to be something further than annoyance and distress”.
Mr Mackintosh explained that the test of whether conduct “threatens serious disturbance in the community” necessarily involves considering the full context. He quoted several cases in Scottish courts involving racial and sectarian abuse at football matches, where a crucial element was that this abuse had been directed at (or delivered in close proximity to) rival supporters, in the incendiary context of a football match attended by supporters of opposing teams.
In a 1981 case against communist activist Mike Duffield, the Sheriff Court had ruled that shouting pro-IRA slogans while selling the Marxist newspaper Fight Racism Fight Imperialism and the pro-IRA newspaper Hands off Ireland was a breach of the peace, despite this being carried out at the stadium of Glasgow Celtic, where many fans hold similar views.
And on the other side of politics, there had been a breach of the peace case involving a National Front activist selling the Young NF paper Bulldog outside the Hearts stadium in Edinburgh.
But in all these cases – and especially bearing in mind recent clarifications of the law in Scotland – it was essential to assess the wider context of the words used – in Vincent’s case, words used in videos broadcast online.
There were eight such videos referred to by French prosecutors in the present warrant. The first related specifically to Oradour. The second, third and fourth presented detailed arguments as to why (in Vincent’s considered opinion) there had been no homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, explaining that conventional ‘Holocaust’ history is based on specious evidence. The fifth and sixth discussed the “Jewish problem” or “what to do about the Jews”. And the seventh and eighth returned to the topic of Auschwitz, the ‘gas chambers’, and broader ‘Holocaust’ themes.
Mr Mackintosh emphasised that in the case of six of these eight videos, Vincent Reynouard had not been calling for any form of action. None of the content potentially qualified as personal abuse, and none of it could be seen as “threatening”. The videos amounted to a historical critique – which might well be controversial, but not illegal in Scotland.
In the case of videos 5 and 6, Vincent was responding to a correspondent. The prosecution had chosen to isolate certain phrases out of context, but Mr Mackintosh said that once seen in context it was clear that Vincent was stating his opposition to any policy of “exterminating” the Jews.
The test that the court had to apply was not whether “reasonable people” would reject Vincent’s views, but whether these views threatened “serious disturbance to society”. Were the court to accept the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to ruling that discussion of controversial arguments regarding the ‘Holocaust’ had become a crime in the UK. Mr Mackintosh said it was open to Parliaments in London and Edinburgh to make ‘Holocaust denial’ a crime, but they had (so far) chosen not to do so.
Therefore to be criminal, Vincent’s words would have to cross a further line, a further evidential test, in order to be regarded as a “breach of the peace”.
Mr Mackintosh then turned to the alternative test, S.127 of the Communications Act. For Vincent’s videos to be considered criminal in this context, they would have to be not merely offensive, but “grossly offensive”.
Prosecutors had rested much of their argument on the precedent of the Chabloz case, as tried in the London courts during recent years – not a binding precedent, but, they argued, very much a “persuasive” precedent in this case. [Chabloz has in recent years been excluded from British revisionist circles, due to her treacherous and malicious conduct in betraying Robert Faurisson’s final meeting to the ‘anti-fascist’ publication ‘Hope not Hate’. But her earlier actions have, as we predicted at the time, served as a precedent to threaten the liberty of Vincent Reynouard.]
On appeal, Chabloz’s conduct had been found to go beyond satire, having crossed the legal line into deliberate, malicious abuse. By contrast, Mr Mackintosh argued, the judge in the present case would find (if he examined the full transcripts of Vincent’s videos) that his arguments – even when highly controversial – were delivered as a calm, academic analysis, not as crude anti-semitic abuse in the Chabloz style.
Mr Mackintosh referred to the leading S.127 case in relation to interpretation of what is “grossly offensive”, namely the Collins case, and the judgment of Lord Bingham.
This had made clear that what is “grossly offensive” has to be assessed in the context of the standards of an “open, just, multiracial society” – a contemporary context that is “reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist”.
In other words, Mr Mackintosh emphasised, the words complained of had to cause gross offence, not simply “to people who care about the Holocaust” and who, for whatever reasons, hold different views to Vincent, but to broader society.
Were ‘Holocaust denial’ or disputing the historicity of Oradour to be deemed criminal per se, the question would necessarily arise – what about the Amritsar massacre, what about the Armenian genocide, and many other controversial historical subjects?
Mr Mackintosh concluded his argument by addressing the question of proportionality. An extradition court is required to consider whether the alleged offence is sufficiently severe to attract a custodial sentence. For example, recent instructions to the lower courts had emphasised that defendants should not be extradited for minor public order offences.
He noted that even in the Chabloz case – where the defendant had been convicted for gross offensiveness which was of a very different character to Vincent’s videos – this had not led to custodial sentences.
It would therefore, Mr Mackintosh argued, be both wrong in law and disproportionate for the Edinburgh Court to extradite Vincent Reynouard to France.
In his argument, the prosecutor (Advocate depute Paul Harvey) insisted that Vincent’s videos did pass the evidential test for the Court to regard his conduct as either (or both) a breach of the peace, and/or “grossly offensive” under S.127.
He invited the judge to consider Vincent’s words in one of the video transcripts, where he had stated that “there is a Jewish problem”, and that in his analysis of this problem he would “go further” than Adolf Hitler. “Naturally, the Jews exploit the situation: to dominate, even to subjugate us.”
Mr Harvey described these words as “the most appalling anti-semitism”, and asked the judge to view all of the videos complained of in the French warrant, in the light of this “anti-semitism”.
Questioned by the judge on this point, Mr Harvey said that (in the prosecutors’ submission) each video should be looked at as a separate breach of the peace offence, but should also be interpreted overall as a “course of conduct” by Vincent.
The mere fact that the UK had no special provision criminalising “Holocaust denial” did not in itself absolve the defendant. When expressed in the terms used by Vincent, Mr Harvey insisted that “Holocaust denial” could be interpreted as criminal under UK as well as French law.
Quoting the case of Rangers fan William Kilpatrick, who had posted on Facebook endorsing the sending of “bombs and bombs” to Celtic manager Neil Lennon, Mr Harvey argued that under Scottish law, intending or inciting a specific action was not necessarily relevant to whether certain words were a “breach of the peace”.
Mr Harvey maintained that some of Vincent’s words in the video could reasonably have led to his being charged with a breach of the peace under Scottish law, because they were calculated to provoke a disturbance of public order.
In fact, he argued that Vincent’s words were potentially a more serious crime than breach of the peace in a football stadium: because they could be viewed online at any time, anywhere in Scotland. Incitement to specific criminal action did not, the prosecution argued, have to be proven.
Mr Harvey added that Vincent’s “crimes” had to be looked at in the context of the very different cultural context in France, and the more serious risk of “anti-semitism being incited”. While the words Vincent used could, Mr Harvey argued, be prosecutable even in Scotland, the Court should take account of the fact that in a French context, they were even more serious.
Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor rejected the defence argument that Vincent’s words were calm, academic discourse. He said they were comparable to the Chabloz case, where it had been established that once a clearly anti-semitic motive had been established, espousal of “Holocaust denial” was ipso facto grossly offensive.
Mr Harvey accepted that (under UK law) not every instance of “Holocaust denial” was criminal, but he maintained that in the cases of both Chabloz and Vincent Reynouard, denying the “Holocaust” did amount to “gross offensiveness”, and therefore contravened S.127.
The prosecutor said the judge would need to apply the proportionality test very carefully. Unlike, for example, a drugs or theft case, Vincent’s criminal conduct was highly context-specific, where the appropriate sentence might differ enormously between Scotland and France. The judge should therefore “respect and give due weight” to French circumstances involving their history, and even present day “racial relations”, which meant that a French court “is justified in taking a severe approach to this”.
Given Vincent’s long and repeated record of “criminal conduct”, Mr Harvey concluded that a custodial sentence in France was not only possible but highly likely: “I urge you to show due deference to France and their different traditions.”
In a brief reply concluding the hearing, Vincent’s counsel Fred Mackintosh said that if the judge accepted the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to saying that any “racist” statement on Facebook or YouTube, regardless of context, would be a breach of the peace. He urged the judge to reject this argument and to recognise that “Holocaust denial” when expressed in Vincent’s terms, is not a crime in Scotland – neither a breach of the peace, nor grossly offensive.
The judge said that he aimed to have read all relevant material and considered the arguments fully, in time to pass judgment on 12th October.
Clearly, the Vincent Reynouard case has become a vitally important test of whether historical revisionism will be criminalised in the UK via a ‘back door’ route, without any honest and open discussion in Parliament.
We shall make a further assessment of the broader context soon. But it should be recognised by all concerned that there will be no surrender of the basic principles involved. In the UK, Spain and Canada, European traditions of free historical inquiry are under attack. We shall defend those traditions, by any and every method that proves necessary.
BBC Newsnight hatchet job on Patriotic Alternative
The BBC’s flagship show Newsnight will tonight (20th September) broadcast a long-planned attack on Patriotic Alternative, whose activists have been campaigning for many months against the abuse of hotel facilities across the UK to house ‘asylum seekers’.
Due to travel plans, H&D will not be able to publish an analysis of this programme until Friday.
But readers should check out the excellent response that PA have already published on their website.
Vincent Reynouard reports from his Edinburgh jail on the eve of his extradition trial
Scottish justice will soon decide whether to extradite me to France or release me. Knowing that, if I am extradited, I will probably spend years in prison, we can say that my fate will be decided on September 21st.
My lawyers are optimistic. Indeed, having served the entire prison sentence which earned me the first arrest warrant, only the second remains. Paris is asking me to judge me for several videos. However, to be extradited, these videos must constitute crimes in both France and Scotland. My lawyers’ argument is clear: my comments do not transgress UK laws.
My opponents invoke the precedent set by the conviction of singer A. Chabloz in 2018. However, A. Chabloz was convicted for having composed, performed and broadcast “grossly offensive” songs. In question here were the vocabulary chosen, the tone adopted and the criticisms formulated against the Jewish people in general. My videos are totally different. Although they may shock and offend, they are never grossly offensive and, therefore, remain within the bounds of freedom of expression as conceived in the United Kingdom.
Many of my relatives are therefore optimistic about the outcome of this hearing. For my part, I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic, because I have learned not to hope for anything and not to fear anything. The reason is always the same: I trust in Providence. So far, she has protected me in my mission. I am therefore convinced that the decision of September 21 will be the most likely to serve the revisionist cause. Certainly, for me, it will undoubtedly be the occasion for new trials, but the trials are there so that we improve by overcoming them.
I will therefore accept the final truth, whatever it may be, and will continue to place the revisionist cause above my personal destiny, because revisionism serves the Common Good and, as a National Socialist, I have always advocated the primacy of the common good over particular interests. Therefore, I will not back down now. My personal destiny is of no importance.
Some will call me a fanatic. However, when we see how the anti-revisionists treat us, we understand that only diehards can endure the fight on the front line. If I wasn’t one, I would have given up a long time ago. Providence raises up the right people where they are needed. Our adversaries being fanatics, She opposes fanatics to them. It’s in the natural order of things.
So I calmly wait for September 21st. In the calm of my cell, I continue my activities of reading, writing, meditation and drawing. After ten months, a daily routine was established. I hardly notice that I am in prison anymore. I’m like on a ship where life unfolds peacefully. For the past few weeks, I have been the oldest on my wing. I know the staff and the inmates know me, because I am a somewhat unusual prisoner.
I should have been released on August 10th, once my prison sentence was fully served. However, the Scottish justice system decided to keep me in prison on the grounds that I could take advantage of my release to escape again. Knowing what I have done since October 2021, this fear is understandable. I would add that, even if this extension of my detention were illegal, I would not claim any compensation, because I did not suffer – far from it – in Edinburgh prison.
Besides, in Edinburgh prison, the deprivation of liberty as it affects me is entirely relative. Certainly, my body is held in a penitentiary establishment, but my mind remains free. Here, I read a lot: I discovered authors like Denis Marquet (on spirituality) and Jacques Ellul (on technique). I corresponded freely with wonderful people. I was able to exercise every day, including three times a week in a well-equipped gym. I enjoyed an excellent diet that many people would envy. Finally, I improved my drawing techniques, especially watercolour.
In my eyes, I am much freer than the citizen forced to get up every morning to do an uninteresting job. My freedom is a thousand times greater than that of people without an inner life, glued to their screen and slaves to social networks.
As for the prison guards, they were very kind to me, probably because they think that there is no legitimate reason for me to be in prison. Not long ago, in fact, a guard told me: “You have been in prison for almost a year, because France does not respect the right to freedom of expression!” I think she was expressing the thoughts of the guards in general…
It is true that, from this vantage point in Scotland, we observe, incredulously, the climate of hysteria which reigns in France around real or imagined anti-Semitism. The causes of this frenzy are undoubtedly multiple.
First of all, I think a lot of Jews are worried. In this changing and crisis-ridden world, they fear a new persecution, even a new “Holocaust”, on the grounds that they would always have been the scapegoats. The associations which represent them therefore act to eradicate anti-Judaism from society. However, knowing that, in our part of the world, “racism” has become the capital sin, the government – whoever it may be – is obliged to support this action.
To this is probably added another fact: at a time when the Rassemblement National (RN – National Rally) is considered, rightly or wrongly, as a force capable of influencing politics, attacking the ultra-right induces Marine Le Pen increasingly to dissociate herself from the ideals of the national right. And as we always end up becoming what we say, whether by conviction or by strategy, then the more the government attacks the ultra-right, the more the RN becomes normalised .
Finally, I think that for some, hitting the ultra-right is another way of attacking the RN, with a view to preventing a possible electoral victory for Marine Le Pen. Indeed, when a government has no positive record to its credit, its only political strategy consists of presenting itself as the ultimate bulwark against the foul Beast. He can then say: “See, the foul beast is not dead. Don’t be fooled; the de-demonisation of the RN is only apparent. If Marine Le Pen comes to power or even comes close, the ultra-right will take the opportunity to resurface.” In my eyes therefore, these various causes contribute to the ambient hysteria.
As for me, I represent an intellectual danger for the government, because I demonstrate that the crimes attributed to the Foul Beast are propaganda lies. My action appears all the more dangerous to him because I denounced a particularly fragile myth: the alleged massacre of women and children in the church of Oradour by the ‘barbaric’ Waffen SS. Without denying the deaths of these people, I demonstrate that the circumstances of this tragedy were very different.
However, if the myth of Oradour falls, some might wonder about Auschwitz. The link will be all the more natural since, since 2017, the challenge to the official History of Oradour has also been repressed by the anti-revisionist law. People will then say: “The myth of Oradour was protected by the same law which prohibits contesting the existence of the gas chambers of Auschwitz; therefore, are these gas chambers also a myth?”
The guardians of Memory cannot therefore retreat: they must defend tooth and nail the myth of Oradour. Hence their interest in silencing me. This doesn’t bode well for me. However, here again, my personal destiny is unimportant. I don’t expect anything down here. The reward will come after this earthly life. This is my conviction (which I do not impose on anyone). Therefore, I am calm.
H&D will report further on Vincent Reynouard’s case and additional reports will appear in English at the Real History blog and in French at Vincent’s own blog Sans Concession.
Millwall – 30 years on (by Tony Paulsen)
16th September 2023 was, as many readers of H&D will know, the thirtieth anniversary to the very day of Derek Beackon’s remarkable win for the BNP in a by-election for the old Millwall ward of Tower Hamlets, at that time way back in 1993 the first victory for an overtly racial nationalist party in seventeen years, and arguably an even more impressive win than the two seats taken by the National Party in Blackburn in 1976, as Derek fought all three system parties, not merely two of them.
Happily, Derek, unlike many other veterans of the struggle in the 1990s, still marches in our ranks in body as well as in spirit, and took the place of honour at a dinner held (appropriately and not perhaps coincidentally) for thirty in a fine venue in South Essex to mark the anniversary. Particular thanks are due to Jane, who organised the function with military precision and did a marvellous job of work in finding the venue and selecting the variety of dishes on the menu.
The guests began to gather around 6.30 p.m., but disruption on the London Underground, especially the eastern end of the Central line meant that we began a little late, which slightly curtailed the speeches, more on that below. By 7.30 we were however all seated for dinner.
After enjoying the excellent food served in a grand old dining room, guests settled down to listen to three very different speakers give us their perspectives in two cases, on the way in which Millwall was won, and in the third, its significance for us to-day.
Chris Roberts, who chaired the proceedings with his usual skill and aplomb, first introduced Steve Smith, sometime BNP organiser in the East End of London (not to be confused with another fine nationalist and winning election strategist, Steve Smith, sometime BNP organiser in Burnley: I am told that there is a photograph of the two of them together, which I would love to see!).
Steve told us about the background to the BNP’s “rights for whites” campaign in the old East End, emphasising that the Millwall victory was not a bolt from the blue. Rather it should be seen as the culmination of a four year long campaign led by a fairly small but very committed group of activists who worked hard and long and applied real political intelligence to the situation to take the ward.
The cadre (to coin a phrase!) responsible for the victory had identified the weakness and complacency of a sclerotic Labour party and seen the potential for an electoral surprise, which they had pulled off in the teeth of violence from political opponents and vicious attempts at intimidation from the Metropolitan Police, by then already a highly politicised and vindictive arm of the state.
Paying tribute to Derek, Steve said that he had been the best councillor that the people of Millwall ward had ever had. While sadly the seat was lost in the “all out” election of 1994, the total number of votes cast for Derek in 1994 was much higher than in 1993, but the Labour party mobilised its London wide activist base to drive turnout up from 44% at the bye-election to an unprecedented 66% in May of 1994 and take the seat back. Nevertheless, that did not detract from the significance of breaking the taboo against electing candidates from outside the system and lighting a beacon, so to speak, for our movement.
Next up was Eddy Butler, who made his name as the BNP’s elections guru in this campaign. He spoke about the strategy and tactics deployed to convert raw electoral potential into a real win. We should not, he said, be coy about “borrowing” winning strategies from our opponents.
He made no secret of the fact that he had both studied and applied the strategy and tactics which the local Liberals had used (despite the misgivings of their national leadership) to progress from no seats at all on Tower Hamlets council in 1974 (when it was a Labour party fiefdom) to overall control by 1986.
The Tower Hamlets Liberals, he said, had used racist dog whistles thinly disguised as localism, notably their “sons and daughters” policy of giving council housing to the families of long standing council tenants, the implications of which policy were obvious.
The BNP learnt from and applied these methods, and also the campaigning skills of the Liberals, notably door to door canvassing, which led to real engagement with the electors.
Eddy paid tribute to the late Richard Edmonds, whose own electioneering skills are not always fully appreciated even by his many friends in the movement.
After Barry Osborne polled 20% of the vote in Millwall ward in 1992, most BNP activists were ecstatic, since the party had never polled so well in a council election till then. Eddy was not ecstatic. He wanted so much more and told Richard that the ward might have been won, had the campaign team found a way to work around the inaccessibility of many blocks of flats in the ward to canvassers by reason of the elaborate entry phone security systems by then already in place. The work around, by the way, was to canvass when the entry phone security system is disabled to allow the postman et al. to get in. Cracked it!
Richard listened, agreed and worked with Eddy to encourage the party’s London activist base to concentrate on a breakthrough on the Isle of Dogs, even if it meant temporarily scaling down activities in other areas of London. Eddy described this strategy as becoming a big party in a small area, on the premise that a localised breakthrough will win massive publicity, raise morale and boost recruitment, so that a geometrical not a merely arithmetical multiplier effect is produced. Reader, bear this tactic well in mind!
Unfortunately, the slightly late start meant that Eddy could not conclude his analysis by explaining what went wrong after the victory, and in particular, the troubles caused by the influence of Combat 18 in Tower Hamlets, culminating in death threats against Eddy and Steve Smith, amongst others. I hope that he will publish that analysis online in due course.
Our last speaker was Laura Towler, who had travelled all the way from Yorkshire with her husband Sam Melia. Laura said that she’d been surprised at being invited to speak, since she was literally a babe in arms in 1993 and was a Yorkshire lass to boot, asked to speak to Londoners about an election campaign in the East End when she’d been in her cradle.
For her, the significance of the Millwall campaign was that it taught a younger generation of nationalists to honour what those who had gone before them had achieved, and reminded her that we all stand in a tradition handed down by such men as Sir Oswald Mosley, John Tyndall and Jonathan Bowden to a new generation of activists. We will, she said, fail that tradition if we do not learn to work together or at least towards common goals. We can disagree about the best way to promote those goals, some will prefer community engagement, others the vehicle of a political party, but we should work towards the same ends, in that manner attainting nationalist unity, without which nothing can be achieved. Laura’s speech was very well received and concluded proceedings on a high note. On a personal note, I was very pleased to meet her and Sam, with whom I’ve corresponded but never met before.
Toasts were proposed to Derek (naturally) and to Gordon “Tom” Callow, a sadly departed veteran of the movement in the East End, who was one of Derek’s running mates in Millwall ward in the all-out election of 1994, after which we wended our ways home, making the wise (or lucky) decision to take the shiny new Elizabeth line back into town and avoid the worst of the transport chaos.
‘Anti-fascists’ demand Home Office action against H&D correspondent and speaker – but who are the real ‘terrorists’?
Having failed in their intense efforts to prevent the H&D meeting in Preston on 9th September, ‘anti-fascists’ – principally the notorious Searchlight organisation – have now begun a massive lobbying campaign, demanding that the Home Secretary should have banned our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering Britain!
Isabel has never been convicted of any criminal offence.
Her only crime is to be a brave and intelligent national socialist, which is not a crime in the UK, where the peaceful expression of political opinions and historical viewpoints is entirely lawful, so long as no one is inciting violence or hatred.
No one claims that anyone at our meeting broke the race laws, and the police have at no point even suggested that any laws were broken by Isabel or anybody else at the event, but the usual suspects are displaying their usual chutzpah.
In response to this outrageous behaviour by ‘anti-fascist’ lobbyists, our Assistant Editor today examines the record of our main accusers and asks: Who are the real terrorists?
This article is also available in Spanish – Quiénes son los verdaderos terroristas’?
Who are the real ‘terrorists’? H&D’s Peter Rushton investigates…
The day before this year’s Heritage and Destiny meeting, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was again detained for more than four hours by border security at Manchester Airport, using Schedule 7 of the UK’s Terrorism Act. Her telephone and computer were seized and examined for two days by officers from the highly politicised Counter Terrorism Command (SO15, formerly Special Branch) who work closely with the British security service MI5.
This follows a similar procedure last year – another act of blatant political harassment. Needless to say no charges followed, because Isabel has committed no crime under UK law. It is not a crime in the UK to be a national socialist; it is not a crime to defend the honour of the División Azul (the brave Spanish volunteers who fought alongside the German Army in defence of Europe’s eastern frontier against Stalin’s barbarians); it is not a crime to dispute historical myths (however many well-funded lobby groups promote those myths); and it is not a crime to oppose the desecration of the grave of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the great Spanish patriot and Falangist leader.
Yet the ‘anti-fascist’ Searchlight magazine has begun a campaign to pressure the Home Secretary, claiming that Border Force harassment of Isabel Peralta was insufficient! They are demanding that this brave and determined patriot – leading light of a new generation of Europeans who are unafraid to stand up for our civilisation – should be excluded from the UK!
And they have the chutzpah to compare Isabel to the waves of illegal immigrants who flood our borders daily, from every corner of the world, and who are wholly alien to European culture and traditions.
It’s time to ask: just who are these ‘anti-fascists’, and who are the real terrorists?
Searchlight is proud to trace its origins from the militant gangs of Jews and communists who fought against Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and National Socialists during the 1930s. This violent Jewish-communist alliance (including some of London’s most notorious gangsters) boasted that one of its regular tactics was to embed razor blades into potatoes and hurl them at British fascists, policemen, and police horses.
More precisely, Searchlight claims descent from the more secretive but equally violent postwar alliance of Zionist Jews and Communists known as the 43 Group, who carried out undercover infiltration of British nationalist groups, as well as burglaries and violent assaults.
One critically important but often overlooked fact is that the 43 Group’s ‘anti-fascist’ violence coincided with a campaign of bombings and assassinations directed by one of the world’s most brutal networks of terrorist killers – Jews who fought against the British Empire as well as against Arab civilians from 1945 to 1948, so as to establish what is now the state of Israel.
In fact the very name of the 43 Group – contrary to many lies told in books about anti-fascism – was derived from a celebrated case of 43 paramilitaries who were arrested by the British authorities in Palestine in October 1939, just weeks after the start of the war. In a cynical act of political opportunism, even after the British Empire had declared war on Adolf Hitler, Jewish paramilitaries were illegally training to fight their own war, if necessary against the British. Only intense political pressure saved these 43 Jews from a long jail sentence.
After naming their group after these illegal Jewish trainee terrorists, many ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group operatives went on to work with Zionist terror gangs who were explicitly targeting British servicemen and civilians. For example Samuel Landman – a crooked solicitor and former secretary to the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann – worked for the Irgun terrorist group (responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel), supplying political intelligence from within the British establishment.
Landman’s children Deborah and David were both involved with the ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group, and with Irgun terrorism. They were directly responsible for arranging a plot to murder General Sir Evelyn Barker, former commander of British forces in Palestine. These two 43 Group members (together with future Israeli President Ezer Weizman and a Jewish South African pilot, Boris Senior) made detailed plans to murder Sir Evelyn at his home – a plot they abandoned due to police surveillance.
Other victims of the Jewish terrorists were not so lucky. In May 1948 a young student, Rex Farran, was murdered by a parcel bomb at his family’s home near Wolverhampton. The bomb had been intended for his brother, an SAS war hero who had been too effective (from the Jews’ point of view) in postwar anti-terrorist operations in Palestine. The Jewish gang responsible for Farran’s murder were never apprehended.
Another member of the same gang planted a bomb inside a servicemen’s club near Trafalgar Square in March 1947. This ruthless terrorist escaped to Paris, where he was protected by fellow Jews and ‘anti-fascists’ including the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. The bomber is still alive, after spending an uninterrupted career in French academia – he is Professor Robert Misrahi, an active Zionist and ‘anti-fascist’.
Misrahi and his fellow terrorists were never troubled by the British police despite having exploded bombs on British soil. One of their number even plotted to infect London’s water supply with cholera, using contacts among Jewish scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.
Such are the terrorists from whom today’s ‘anti-fascists’ proudly trace their heritage.
Searchlight is directly descended from the intelligence arm of the 43 Group’s successor, the 62 Group, founded by Jews and communists in 1962 to mount violent attacks on British political movements led by Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, and John Bean.
Part of the 62 Group’s training came from an Israeli intelligence officer – Monica Medicks – who had direct experience of postwar Zionist terrorism, having volunteered soon after the Second World War to join the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the group responsible for many terrorist atrocities including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 91 people.
Her husband Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) was a commander of Mahal (‘Volunteers from Abroad’) recruiting Jews from around the world to fight for the new Zionist state in 1948. Oddly, once this state was secured, Stanley and Monica Medicks chose not to stay in Palestine, instead moving first to Kenya (where Stanley Medicks had been born) then somewhat ironically fleeing from the anti-British, anti-White terrorism of the notorious Mau Mau and settling in London, where Stanley was on the surface a used car dealer, but both he and his wife worked in various roles for Israeli intelligence.
Monica Medicks – the anti-British terrorist turned Israeli intelligence officer and militant London ‘anti-fascist’ – went on to advise JACOB – the Jewish Aid Committee of Britain – which in the spring of 1966 circulated proposals within the Jewish community for a new, aggressive Jewish strategy. Metropolitan Police Special Branch monitored this new form of Jewish extremism, just as they had the 62 Group.
Eventually JACOB evolved into today’s very respectable ‘Community Security Trust’, a Jewish lobby group that works closely with the British police and security services. CST’s founding chairman, Gerald Ronson, is now friendly with British aristocrats and royalty, despite having been a 62 Group thug, and having been convicted for a violent assault on one of Sir Oswald Mosley’s followers. Ronson was a close friend and ally of the 62 Group’s intelligence officer, former Communist Party candidate Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight, leading the campaign to paint Isabel Peralta as a criminal.
While Isabel Peralta has no criminal convictions, Ronson and Gable have several criminal convictions between them. In addition to his conviction for politically motivated violence, Ronson served several years in prison for his leading role in one of the City of London’s most notorious fraud cases, while Gable was convicted alongside two fellow ‘anti-fascists’ for illegally entering the home of the British historian David Irving, with the objective of stealing documents.
In later years, Searchlight developed close ties to other offshoots of extremely violent anti-fascism, notably ‘Anti-Fascist Action’. Searchlight‘s main northern operative – Steve Tilzey – was imprisoned for his part in kidnapping a young National Front activist. Passing sentence the judge told Tilzey and his fellow conspirators, who included leading figures in the Trotskyist ‘Socialist Workers Party’: “the weapons you took with you are quite dreadful, capable of inflicting the most serious injuries and of killing in many cases.”
One of Tilzey’s right-hand men in Manchester anti-fascism was a notorious gangland assassin: Dessie Noonan, who was later murdered by a fellow drug dealer.
Yet more serious violence was carried out by another of Searchlight‘s allies in Anti-Fascist Action, one of its leading London militants, Patrick Hayes, who was given a 30-year jail sentence for planting an IRA bomb outside Harrods, the famous store in central London. Another of Hayes’s fellow ‘anti-fascists’ – Liam Heffernan – was jailed for 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of another Irish terrorist group, the INLA.
Throughout this period, Britain’s most militant ‘anti-fascists’ were often also involved with Irish terrorism, just as their predecessors had been active in Jewish terrorism against British targets.
Probably the worst crime committed by ‘anti-fascists’ working with the IRA was the Warrington bombing in 1993 which killed 12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball.
Yet after these decades of association with some of the worst thuggery and brutality in British political history, ‘anti-fascists’ dare to campaign against a young woman whose only ‘crime’ is to express political and historical views that they disagree with.
We have this message for ‘anti-fascist’ bullies and their financial backers: Heritage and Destiny will support our brave comrade Isabel Peralta at whatever level necessary to defeat your campaign of intimidation. Whenever you lie about Isabel to induce British ‘anti-terrorist’ police to harass her, we shall respond with the truth about your own terrorist friends and connections going back many decades.
We are confident that no police force, no sinister security agency, and no financial string-pulling will defeat the truth.
The true Europe represented by Isabel Peralta will defeat the alien-imposed anti-European order of lies and chicanery.
Quiénes son los verdaderos ‘terroristas’? Peter Rushton de H&D investiga…
El día antes de la reunión de Heritage & Destiny de este año, nuestra corresponsal europea Isabel Peralta fue nuevamente detenida durante más de cuatro horas por la seguridad fronteriza en el aeropuerto de Manchester, utilizando el Anexo 7 de la Ley contra el Terrorismo del Reino Unido. Su teléfono y su ordenador fueron confiscados y examinados durante dos días por agentes del altamente politizado Comando Antiterrorista (SO15, antigua Rama Especial), que trabaja en estrecha colaboración con el servicio de seguridad británico MI5.
Esto sigue a un procedimiento similar el año pasado: otro acto de flagrante acoso político. No hace falta decir que no se presentaron cargos, porque Isabel no ha cometido ningún delito según la ley del Reino Unido. En el Reino Unido no es un delito ser nacionalsocialista; no es un crimen defender el honor de la División Azul (los valientes voluntarios españoles que lucharon junto al ejército alemán en defensa de la frontera oriental de Europa contra los bárbaros de Stalin); no es un delito cuestionar los mitos históricos (por más que muchos grupos de presión bien financiados promuevan esos mitos); y no es delito oponerse a la profanación de la tumba de José Antonio Primo de Rivera, el gran patriota español y líder falangista.
Sin embargo, la revista “antifascista” Searchlight ha iniciado una campaña para presionar al Ministro del Interior, alegando que el acoso de las Fuerzas Fronterizas a Isabel Peralta fue insuficiente. ¡Exigen que este patriota valiente y decidido, líder de una nueva generación de europeos que no tienen miedo de defender nuestra civilización, sea excluido del Reino Unido!
Y tienen el descaro de comparar a Isabel con las oleadas de inmigrantes ilegales que inundan nuestras fronteras a diario, desde todos los rincones del mundo, y que son totalmente ajenos a la cultura y las tradiciones europeas.
Es hora de preguntar: ¿quiénes son estos “antifascistas” y quiénes son los verdaderos terroristas?
Searchlight se enorgullece de rastrear sus orígenes en las bandas militantes de judíos y comunistas que lucharon contra la Unión Británica de Fascistas y Nacionalsocialistas de Sir Oswald Mosley durante la década de 1930. Esta violenta alianza judío-comunista (que incluía a algunos de los gánsteres más notorios de Londres) se jactaba de que una de sus tácticas habituales era incrustar hojas de afeitar en patatas y arrojárselas a los fascistas, policías y caballos de policía británicos.
Más precisamente, Searchlight afirma descender de la alianza de posguerra más secreta pero igualmente violenta de judíos sionistas y comunistas conocida como el Grupo 43, que llevó a cabo infiltración encubierta de grupos nacionalistas británicos, así como robos y asaltos violentos.
Un hecho de importancia crítica, pero que a menudo se pasa por alto, es que la violencia “antifascista” del Grupo 43 coincidió con una campaña de atentados y asesinatos dirigida por una de las redes de asesinos terroristas más brutales del mundo: judíos que lucharon contra el Imperio Británico así como contra civiles árabes de 1945 a 1948, para establecer lo que hoy es el Estado de Israel.
De hecho, el nombre mismo del Grupo 43 –contrariamente a muchas mentiras contadas en libros sobre antifascismo– se deriva de un célebre caso de 43 paramilitares que fueron arrestados por las autoridades británicas en Palestina en octubre de 1939, pocas semanas después del inicio de la guerra. En un cínico acto de oportunismo político, incluso después de que el Imperio Británico hubiera declarado la guerra a Adolf Hitler, los paramilitares judíos se estaban entrenando ilegalmente para librar su propia guerra, de ser necesario contra los británicos. Sólo una intensa presión política salvó a estos 43 judíos de una larga sentencia de cárcel.
Después de nombrar a su grupo con el nombre de estos terroristas judíos ilegales en formación, muchos agentes “antifascistas” del Grupo 43 pasaron a trabajar con bandas terroristas sionistas que apuntaban explícitamente a militares y civiles británicos. Por ejemplo, Samuel Landman –un abogado corrupto y ex secretario del primer presidente de Israel, Chaim Weizmann– trabajó para el grupo terrorista Irgun (responsable del atentado contra el hotel King David), suministrando inteligencia política desde dentro del establishment británico.
Los hijos de Landman, Deborah y David, estuvieron involucrados con el Grupo 43 “antifascista” y con el terrorismo del Irgun. Fueron directamente responsables de organizar un complot para asesinar al general Sir Evelyn Barker, ex comandante de las fuerzas británicas en Palestina. Estos dos miembros del Grupo 43 (junto con el futuro presidente israelí Ezer Weizman y un piloto judío sudafricano, Boris Senior) hicieron planes detallados para asesinar a Sir Evelyn en su casa, un complot que abandonaron debido a la vigilancia policial.
Otras víctimas de los terroristas judíos no tuvieron tanta suerte. En mayo de 1948, un joven estudiante, Rex Farran, fue asesinado por un paquete bomba en la casa de su familia cerca de Wolverhampton. La bomba estaba destinada a su hermano, un héroe de guerra del SAS que había sido demasiado eficaz (desde el punto de vista de los judíos) en las operaciones antiterroristas de posguerra en Palestina. La banda judía responsable del asesinato de Farran nunca fue detenida.
Otro miembro de la misma banda colocó una bomba dentro de un club de militares cerca de Trafalgar Square en marzo de 1947. Este terrorista despiadado escapó a París, donde fue protegido por compañeros judíos y “antifascistas”, incluido el filósofo Jean-Paul Sartre. El atacante sigue vivo, después de haber desarrollado una carrera ininterrumpida en la academia francesa: es el profesor Robert Misrahi, un sionista activo y “antifascista”.
Misrahi y sus compañeros terroristas nunca fueron molestados por la policía británica a pesar de haber hecho explotar bombas en suelo británico. Uno de ellos incluso conspiró para infectar el suministro de agua de Londres con cólera, utilizando contactos entre científicos judíos del Instituto Pasteur de París.
Así son los terroristas de quienes los “antifascistas” de hoy remontan con orgullo su herencia.
Searchlight desciende directamente del brazo de inteligencia del sucesor del Grupo 43, el Grupo 62, fundado por judíos y comunistas en 1962 para montar ataques violentos contra los movimientos políticos británicos liderados por Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall y John Bean.
Parte del entrenamiento del Grupo 62 provino de una oficial de inteligencia israelí, Monica Medicks, que tenía experiencia directa con el terrorismo sionista de posguerra y se ofreció como voluntaria poco después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial para unirse al Irgun Zvai Leumi, el grupo responsable de muchas atrocidades terroristas, incluido el bombardeo del Hotel Rey David de Jerusalén en julio de 1946, matando a 91 personas.
Su marido Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) fue un comandante de Mahal (‘Voluntarios del Extranjero’) que reclutaba judíos de todo el mundo para luchar por el nuevo estado sionista en 1948. Curiosamente, una vez que este estado estuvo asegurado, Stanley y Monica Medicks eligieron no quedarse en Palestina, sino mudarse primero a Kenia (donde había nacido Stanley Medicks) y luego, un tanto irónicamente, huir del terrorismo antibritánico y antiblanco del famoso Mau Mau y establecerse en Londres, donde Stanley era en la superficie un vendedor de autos usados, pero tanto él como su esposa trabajaron en diversos roles para la inteligencia israelí.
Monica Medicks –la terrorista antibritánica convertida en oficial de inteligencia israelí y militante “antifascista” de Londres– pasó a asesorar a JACOB –el Comité de Ayuda Judía de Gran Bretaña– que en la primavera de 1966 hizo circular propuestas dentro de la comunidad judía para una nueva, estrategia judía agresiva. La Brigada Especial de la Policía Metropolitana vigiló esta nueva forma de extremismo judío, al igual que lo había hecho con el Grupo 62.
Con el tiempo, JACOB evolucionó hasta convertirse en el hoy muy respetable “Community Security Trust”, un grupo de presión judío que trabaja en estrecha colaboración con la policía y los servicios de seguridad británicos. El presidente fundador del CST, Gerald Ronson, es ahora amigo de los aristócratas y la realeza británica, a pesar de haber sido un matón del Grupo 62 y de haber sido condenado por un asalto violento a uno de los seguidores de Sir Oswald Mosley. Ronson era un amigo cercano y aliado del oficial de inteligencia del Grupo 62, el ex candidato del Partido Comunista, Gerry Gable, quien ahora es el editor y editor de Searchlight, y lidera la campaña para presentar a Isabel Peralta como una criminal.
Si bien Isabel Peralta no tiene condenas penales, Ronson y Gable tienen varias condenas penales entre ellos. Además de su condena por violencia por motivos políticos, Ronson cumplió varios años de prisión por su papel destacado en uno de los casos de fraude más notorios de la City de Londres, mientras que Gable fue condenado junto con dos compañeros “antifascistas” por entrar ilegalmente en la casa de el historiador británico David Irving, con el objetivo de robar documentos.
En años posteriores, Searchlight desarrolló estrechos vínculos con otras ramas del antifascismo extremadamente violento, en particular la “Acción Antifascista”. El principal agente norteño de Searchlight, Steve Tilzey, fue encarcelado por su participación en el secuestro de un joven activista del Frente Nacional. Al dictar sentencia, el juez dijo a Tilzey y a sus compañeros de conspiración, entre los que se encontraban figuras destacadas del “Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores” trotskista: “las armas que se llevaron son bastante espantosas, capaces de infligir las heridas más graves y, en muchos casos, de matar”.
Una de las manos derechas de Tilzey en el antifascismo de Manchester era un famoso asesino del hampa: Dessie Noonan, que más tarde fue asesinado por un compañero traficante de drogas.
Aún más violencia grave fue llevada a cabo por otro de los aliados de Searchlight en Acción Antifascista, uno de sus principales militantes londinenses, Patrick Hayes, que fue condenado a 30 años de cárcel por colocar una bomba del IRA frente a Harrods, la famosa tienda en el centro de Londres. Otro de los compañeros “antifascistas” de Hayes –Liam Heffernan– fue encarcelado durante 23 años por robar explosivos en nombre de otro grupo terrorista irlandés, el INLA.
A lo largo de este período, los “antifascistas” más militantes de Gran Bretaña a menudo también estuvieron involucrados con el terrorismo irlandés, del mismo modo que sus predecesores habían estado activos en el terrorismo judío contra objetivos británicos.
Probablemente el peor crimen cometido por los “antifascistas” que trabajaban con el IRA fue el atentado de Warrington en 1993, en el que murieron Tim Parry, de 12 años, y Johnathan Ball, de 3.
Sin embargo, después de estas décadas de asociación con algunos de los peores matones y brutalidades de la historia política británica, los “antifascistas” se atreven a hacer campaña contra una joven cuyo único “crimen” es expresar puntos de vista políticos e históricos con los que no están de acuerdo.
Tenemos este mensaje para los matones “antifascistas” y sus patrocinadores financieros: Heritage and Destiny apoyará a nuestra valiente camarada Isabel Peralta en cualquier nivel necesario para derrotar su campaña de intimidación. Siempre que mientas sobre Isabel para inducir a la policía “antiterrorista” británica a acosarla, responderemos con la verdad sobre tus propios amigos terroristas y tus conexiones que se remontan a muchas décadas atrás.
Estamos seguros de que ninguna fuerza policial, ninguna agencia de seguridad siniestra y ninguna influencia financiera derrotarán la verdad.
La verdadera Europa representada por Isabel Peralta derrotará el orden antieuropeo de mentiras y argucias impuesto por la innombrable élite internacional.
Moscow reinstates tribute to the original Bolshevik secret police chief
Vladimir Putin’s Russia is steeped in the values of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Earlier this year Putin visited Volgograd, which in honour of his visit temporarily restored its old name of Stalingrad and sent a new “Stalingrad Brigade” to fight in Ukraine – a war that Putin boasted would restore the old Soviet border and wipe out the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian culture.
That war hasn’t gone according to the Kremlin’s script, but Putin and his henchmen continue to turn back the clock with their veneration of the Soviet era and all its brutalities.
Last week Putin’s foreign intelligence service SVR (the direct heir of the KGB) reinstated a giant bronze statue of the founder of Bolshevik Russia’s secret police and intelligence service, Feliks Dzerzhinsky.
A Polish aristocrat, Dzerzhinsky became a Marxist activist in his schooldays. In 1917, within weeks of the Bolshevik seizure of power, Lenin put him in charge of the Cheka, a new secret police force, where he led a campaign of ruthless terror including mass executions.
Like Putin, Dzerzhinsky was a gentile who surrounded himself with Jews in key positions of the terror apparatus.
His Cheka changed its name several times, eventually evolving into the KGB. Putin idolised the KGB of the Stalin era, and was proud to serve in the organisation during the last days of the Soviet Union.
A few years ago he visited the home of his old KGB boss, Lazar Matveev, for whom Putin worked in Dresden from 1985 until the collapse of communist ‘East Germany’ at the end of 1989 and start of 1990.
Just as he has continued to do via the KGB’s successor agencies in the era of Facebook etc., Putin during his Dresden years worked on Matveev’s instructions to infiltrate and manipulate ‘extremist’ political groups in the West – both the far-left ‘Red Army Faction’ terrorists and some of Germany’s most militant ‘neo-nazis’.
In the latter case Putin’s main agent was Rainer Sonntag, a petty criminal who became close to Michael Kühnen, homosexual leader of one of Germany’s many neo-nazi factions. Kühnen died of AIDS in April 1991, and Sonntag was shot dead in Dresden a few weeks later. A neat and perhaps not coincidental way to prevent discussion of Putin’s operation in post-communist German courts.
By this time Putin was almost 40 and beginning his post-KGB ascent of the new and intensely corrupt Russian bureaucracy. A few weeks after Sonntag’s murder, Putin took the first of several influential jobs in the office of the Mayor of Leningrad (later St Petersburg), a man with close ties to the elite of Russian organised crime.
Putin’s subsequent close ties to Russian oligarchs (many of them Jews, including some of the world’s leading promoters of ‘Holocaust’ education such as Roman Abramovich and Moshe Kantor) are too well-known to need further discussion here.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Putin continues to wrap himself in the Red flag of Stalinist ‘anti-fascism’ and seeks to further the bloody legacy of Feliks Dzerzhinsky and Ilya Ehrenburg. The big difference is that (for many decades) the likes of Dzerzhinsky and Ehrenburg appeared to be on the winning side. With Putin’s hubris having led to stalemate and a slow slide into defeat, we shall see the end of the post-1945 settlement – and for the first time in almost 80 years, the potential rebirth of the true Europe.
Video from 2023 H&D Meeting now online
Despite many loud threats from the ultra-left and their financial backers, the 2023 H&D meeting went ahead unimpeded, at a hotel in the Lancashire countryside, just outside Preston.
We are now in the process of uploading video from this event, courtesy of our media team who put in many hours of hard work on the day and during the following week.
The first video to be uploaded is this speech by Laura Towler, from Patriotic Alternative. Laura paid tribute to the political legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the four men honoured at this year’s meeting, 75 years after the foundation of Mosley’s postwar Union Movement. Some of us at H&D knew veteran Mosleyites, and we are certain that they (and especially Lady Mosley) would have been very happy to know that Laura, her husband Sam, and the PA team are advancing the patriotic cause in 2023!
We now also have the speech by PA’s founder and leader Mark Collett (which for technical reasons is only available in audio.
Mark spoke about his years in the BNP during the first decade of the millennium. As older viewers will remember, he was one of the most effective and hardworking BNP officers of that era, but his work and that of many other sincere patriots came to nothing, due to the corruption and incompetence of BNP leader Nick Griffin. In this frank and cogent analysis, Mark describes what was good about the BNP, and what went so badly wrong.
Also now online is this speech by Professor John Kersey, Vice-President of the Traditional Britain Group. Professor Kersey addressed the broken state of British politics and society, and emphasised that “musical freedom comes the moment you say it isn’t about the money or the fame, or about what anyone, powerful or not, thinks of it. It’s about the need to engage with our culture and community, to create, to communicate and to inspire. The reward isn’t money or fame. The reward is doing it and making your audience feel that you have connected with them in a way that nothing else can.”
‘Anti-fascist’ hysteria during recent days has focused on our European correspondent, Isabel Peralta, who spoke of her conviction that political faith, loyalty, honour and fanaticism can move mountains.
Isabel called on racial nationalists to show the spirit of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defending Europe at Thermopylae, and of the national socialist martyrs who fell in Munich in 1923, almost a decade before the triumph of their cause.
The true European spirit is alive in our hearts and will triumph: those H&D readers and European nationalists lucky enough to know Isabel Peralta will never doubt it.
The closing speech was given by H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton, who also writes the Real History blog. Peter explains who the real “terrorists” are, and exposes their connections to the same establishment and ‘antifa’ organisations that sought to impede this year’s meeting; the same sinister forces that pulled the strings behind UK border security to harass fellow speaker Isabel Peralta.
Paying tribute to the four men honoured at this year’s event – Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley, and Ian Stuart – Peter emphasised that our enemies’ fear is a sign that the flame of European nationalism burns brightly in 2023. As Sir Oswald Mosley told his followers: “Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.”
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, retired archaeology lecturer, Orangeman, and chairman of the British Democrats, based his speech around an analysis of Professor Nigel Biggar’s new book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – which was reviewed in Issue 115 of H&D.
Jim talked about the positive side of the British Empire, as well as slavery and how the British were the first of the major powers of the time to ban it. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics. Despite disappointing council election results earlier this year, they are presently the main electoral force on the British nationalist scene. And unlike the tragic rump of the BNP (which lives off legacies and does no serious political work), the Brit Dems do not pay any staff. All their funds are spent on building the movement and spreading information about the present crisis of our nation.
Stephen Frost, National Secretary of British Movement, acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – at demonstrations, election campaigns and at meetings such as this one.
Steve added that the task of all nationalists is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: whether old-school with hard copy leaflets and newspapers or by more modern means using the internet including social media. The propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values. Stephen Frost and BM have utilised these propaganda methods, via such means as the ‘Under the Sunwheel’ podcast. Colin Jordan’s political legacy continues to inspire new generations of activists.
Stephen Frost’s co-host at ‘Under the Sunwheel’, Benny Bullman, lead singer of the Rock Against Communism band Whitelaw, spoke in tribute to Ian Stuart, founder of Blood & Honour and lead singer of Skrewdriver, who tragically died 30 years ago this month.
Benny pointed out that Ian Stuart’s dedication to race and nation led him to turn his back on a lucrative career in ‘mainstream’ music (an industry controlled by the usual suspects). Ian achieved far more than the wealth and fame that was accrued by some of his contemporaries after they sold out. The legacy of Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver continues to inspire new generations of patriots throughout the White world.
Video from Ken Schmidt’s speech to our conference will be available soon.
Sam Swerling 1939-2023
H&D learned with great sadness of the death of one of our oldest regular readers, retired law lecturer and former Westminster city councillor Sam Swerling, yesterday at the age of 83.
In an era when Conservatives have been among the worst traitors in our political life, Sam Swerling was a rare example of fearless loyalty and commitment to patriotic principles: a stout defender of the Union, race and nation.
Nor was he a ‘Little Englander’: Sam had many connections to European nationalists, especially in France.
Educated at Repton and Trinity College, Dublin, Sam Swerling spent most of his career as a partner in a firm of solicitors in the City of London, and as a law lecturer and teacher at City University, London.
Sam became a Conservative Party activist in the late 1950s, and fought his first election campaign in 1959 as Conservative candidate for Newham North-West, in what was then the London County Council.
In February 1974 he was parliamentary candidate for Stalybridge & Hyde (coincidentally close to the home of H&D’s assistant editor, who was only 7 years old at the time and not yet politically active!). Sam polled 16,854 votes (32%). And in 1978 he was elected councillor for the Marylebone ward on Westminster City Council.
In 1965 Sam Swerling joined the Monday Club, which was then becoming the main vehicle for traditional patriotism inside the Conservative Party, and from 1972-1993 he was a member of the Monday Club’s Executive Council, editing several of its publications. Sam was chairman of the Monday Club from 1980-82.
After the Monday Club’s demise, Sam Swerling became an active member of three organisations which sought to carry on the fight for traditional conservatism, in both domestic and foreign policy: the Western Goals Institute, Conservative Democratic Alliance, and Traditional Britain Group.
The last of these is still flourishing, under the leadership of Gregory Lauder-Frost, and Sam was Vice-President of TBG until his death.
In 2017 he published his political memoir Sam Swerling – Nation, Tradition & Liberty, reviewed by Adrian Davies in Issue 82 of H&D.
A tribute to Sam will appear in the next edition of our magazine.
