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.

Robert Faurisson Archive restored – including newly rediscovered audio

On 21st October last year – the fourth anniversary of the death of the historical revisionist and literary scholar, Professor Robert Faurisson – the usual suspects removed the online blog hosting a comprehensive archive of his writings in several languages.

Thanks to the work of Professor Faurisson’s righthand man and translator, the blog has been restored at a new address, robert-faurisson.com

This blog remains under construction with material being added and adapted to the new format.

Among the most recent additions is an important rediscovery: an audio recording of a speech delivered by Professor Faurisson in New York in 1980, to a group of revisionists convened by Fritz Berg.

This period was a turning point in revisionist history. As implied by the meeting chairman, this was the early days of what has since become the established religion of Holocaustianity.

The American miniseries Holocaust had first been broadcast only two years earlier, in April 1978, and then rebroadcast in September 1979, just a few months before this meeting. It was first broadcast in Germany in January 1979 and undoubtedly had more impact than any of the more ‘serious’ treatments of the topic by the likes of Claude Lanzmann, with far more brainwashing effect on Germans than the immediate postwar propaganda by Anglo-American occupiers.

Robert Faurisson’s first reaction to this Hollywood production appears on the blog (in French) here. In English his comments, headed “The docudrama Holocaust or the end of a taboo”, translate as follows:

Hitler’s “gas chambers” never existed.

The “genocide” (or: the attempted “genocide”) of the Jews never took place.

Those so-called “gas chambers” and that so-called “genocide” are one and the same lie.

This lie is of essentially Zionist origin.

It has allowed a gigantic political-financial swindle of which the State of Israel is the chief beneficiary.

This lie was denounced by the Germans as early as 1944.

From 1945 to the present day it has also been denounced by Frenchmen, Britons and Americans.

For thirty years, the general public knew nothing of the fact that the lie had been exposed. The mainstream media said nothing about this. On the contrary, they repeated the lie in an ever more deafening way.

From 1974-1975, they started talking about those who exposed the lie. With insults, and distortions of their words. They said, for example: “These people are Nazis, madmen, cranks. They deny the obvious. They dare to say that the Nazi concentration camps and their crematory ovens didn’t exist.”

In 1977, the mass media continued still more vigorously. They put out cries of alarm. They said that Nazism was reappearing in Germany and a bit all over the world.

Not once have they agreed to give those whom they accuse a chance to speak.

Not once have they made known the precise opinions of the people accused.

Why is this?

Because they are afraid that the general public, on seeing what these people actually are and what they actually say, will realise that they have been lied to.

The general public would see that they are serious people, well informed, concerned with the truth and not with propaganda. They have never denied the existence of the concentration camps and the crematory ovens. They say that those camps existed and they add that the Germans were neither the first nor the last to use concentration camps. They say that those crematory ovens also existed and they add that there is nothing bad about burning corpses rather than burying them, above all in places where there is a risk of epidemic.

Moreover, they say that never did Germany’s leaders either give the order or equip themselves with the means to kill anyone simply because of his or her race or religion. The alleged “holocaust” of six million Jews is a lie orchestrated, like it or not, by the media. The American film Holocaust, described as a “docudrama”, is nothing but a farce and a political and commercial operation to boot. It constitutes the admission that now, in 1978, the Zionist taboo can choose only between sex-shop Nazism and show business hype.

Yet in the thirty-five years since Holocaust was first broadcast, cultural ‘occupation’ has proved more relentless than literal military occupation. Reportedly around half of the West German population watched the series.

Robert Faurisson pioneered the resistance to this brainwashing, and in 2023 his work is more relevant than ever before, as the reach of Holocaustian laws spreads even to countries such as the UK, Spain and Canada that were once relative havens of free historical investigation.

The Vincent Reynouard extradition hearing in Edinburgh next month will be an important stage in this steady encroachment of tyranny. It will be said that this is not backdoor criminalisation, because Vincent’s ‘crime’ was committed in France and it is ‘simply’ a matter of extraditing him to face French justice, regardless of the fact that he infringed no UK law.

But the effect is to move towards acceptance by the British media (and by British police and border control officers who collaborate with their European counterparts) that ‘Holocaust deniers’ and ‘Nazis’ are ipso facto criminals.

Here and at the Real History blog, a campaign of resistance to this tyranny is being prepared. Keep watching these two sites for further details, coming soon.

How Rudolf Hess tried to stop war – and why others wanted to kill him

Thirty-five years ago today, the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess died at Spandau, where he had been the sole prisoner for more than twenty years. He had been incarcerated for almost half a century, since his crash landing in Scotland in May 1941.

Hess flew to Britain hoping that Germany and Britain could end their mutually-destructive war. He proposed that Britain should develop her Empire which was in no way threatened by Germany, who only required the return of her relatively modest colonies from the Kaiser’s era.

Under Hess’s proposals, Germany would be given a free hand in Europe, including dealing with Stalin’s Soviet Union.

After war had intensified during 1940, Hess perceived that Britain would not now easily agree a peace settlement without losing prestige, so he decided to take the risk of flying to Britain himself, “so that by his own presence in England, England would be enabled to consider an approach.” Hess hoped that he could provide some foundation on which peace talks could proceed.

Instead this martyr for peace found himself in one prison or another for the rest of his life.

To begin with Hess used cautious language about the Soviet Union, not wishing to give away too much in advance of what he hoped would be serious negotiations with the British. But by July 1941 when he wrote a memorandum titled “Germany – England from the viewpoint of war against the Soviet Union”, eventually handed to government minister and Daily Express owner Lord Beaverbrook, Hess was open (and prescient) about the overriding threat from Moscow that he believed an Anglo-German alliance should combat.

He believed that Germany was strong enough to defeat Russia, correctly pointing out that German morale was far higher in this war than it had been during the First World War:
“It will hardly be doubted that the spirit of the troops is magnificent. The elements which in the [first] world war eventually weakened the spirit of the German troops – the disruptive influences from home infected with Marxist communism, and hunger at home – are missing today.

“Thanks to the effects of national-socialism, the German armed forces are not only immune from Bolshevik propaganda, but fantastically anti-Bolshevik.”

Nevertheless, Hess asked influential Britons such as Beaverbrook to consider the consequences for the British Empire of a German defeat.

“Consequent on the Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, a victory for England would be a victory for the Bolsheviks.

“…Should England’s hopes of a German weakening be realised, the Soviet state, after the expansion of its armament capacity, would be the strongest military power in the world.

“Only a strong Germany as counter-balance, supported by all Europe, and in trustful relationship with England, could hinder this.

“I believe that Germany, destined by fate, was compelled at a given moment to draw aside the curtain covering the secret of the Bolshevik army, so that revelation of the danger might even yet make possible the defence of the civilised world.

“…England should further bear in mind the danger that would face certain parts of her Empire when the Bolshevik giant – which today is hardly conquerable by the biggest army in the world – has reached the military strength to be anticipated in the future.

“The danger will be still further increased by the attraction of Bolshevik ideas with the native-born populations with a low standard of living.

“…I am convinced that world domination awaits the Soviet Union in the future – if her power is not broken at the last minute – with the loss to Great Britain of her position as an Imperial power.”

Which of us in 2022 could say he was wrong?

The current issue of H&D includes an article by our assistant editor Peter Rushton giving the most likely explanation of Hess’s murder in 1987.

And way back in 1941, soon after Hess’s arrival in Britain, there was an abortive plot to kill him, involving exiled Polish troops and an officer of the Special Operations Executive – the ‘dirty tricks’ wing of the British war effort.

For a discussion of this and other aspects of today’s 35th anniversary of Hess’s murder, visit the new Real History blog by our assistant editor.

H&D extends social media presence for 2022

As we make final proof changes for Issue 106 of the magazine, which will be printed immediately after the holidays, we have begun expanding our online activities with new social media accounts.

Heritage and Destiny will remain essentially a hard-copy print operation, delivering six issues every year of our magazine representing a cross-section of 21st century racial nationalist opinion and activity – and featuring articles and reviews on political, cultural, historical and meta-political aspects of our cause.

For us – unlike many of our colleagues in nationalism – our website and social media will always be a supplement to (rather than replacement for) print publication.

However we did think it was time for expansion of our online presence, so we now have new Instagram and Gab accounts, in addition to the Twitter account and our editor’s longstanding personal Facebook account.

Broadly speaking, the division of responsibilities will be that our assistant editor will run the Instagram and Gab accounts, while the editor runs the Twitter and Facebook accounts – although matters of great interest arising from social media will doubtless be considered by the entire H&D team.

We look forward to hearing from readers in the New Year, in whatever format!

Click here to visit us on Instagram

Click here to visit us on Gab

Click here to visit our Twitter account

Click here to visit our editor on Facebook.

There will also be occasional videos posted to YouTube as well as Instagram, such as this English-subtitled version of the film made by Isabel Peralta inspired by Dr Pierre Krebs’ book Fighting for the Essence – book that is also reviewed by Peter Rushton here and in Issue 66 of the magazine.

Another addition for 2022 is that just as our editor can be reached both by email and Facebook, our assistant editor can be now contacted on Telegram.

H&D target of new legal crackdown

The UK Government is preparing a new threat to online debate – extending the law to cover a wide range of material that until now has been perfectly acceptable.

And Heritage & Destiny is the top target of these new internet censors.

A document submitted to Parliament in September this year, but which we saw for the first time yesterday – quotes H&D as the main example of a website that is presently accepted by existing law as legitimate journalism – but which lawmakers now aim to restrict as ‘harmful’.

The new law intends not to criminalise us directly, but to force internet companies to ‘protect’ users from being offended by even ‘legal but harmful content’. These companies would face big fines under the new law if they failed to comply with instructions, for example to remove our content from their servers or remove us from search engine results.

The main examples of ‘harmful’ articles that in the document’s authors’ view should be restricted include our report on Henry Hafenmayer, the courageous German historical revisionist who died earlier this year at the tragically young age of 48.

Henry would no doubt be most amused to see that his campaigns for truth and justice continue to ‘threaten’ British parliamentarians even after his death, so that his work remains read posthumously in the corridors of UK power! He is most famous for his website Ende der Lüge (“End of the Lie”) and associated social media accounts: H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton and campaigner for freedom of research Lady Michèle Renouf attended his funeral in Berlin two months ago, a funeral which itself made headlines.

During the 2018 trial of revisionist filmmaker and video blogger Alfred Schaefer in Munich, Henry cooperated closely with Lady Renouf so that her daily updates from the trial could reach the Anglosphere via American Free Press. He was a regular speaker at demonstrations in support of German sovereignty and justice. Alongside the late Richard Edmonds, Henry had been due to speak at the Dresden commemoration in February 2018 before police closed down the event and arrested Lady Renouf: an extended legal process fought by German attorney and patriot Wolfram Nahrath ended in Lady Renouf’s victory over Dresden prosecutors who dropped the case days before it was to come to trial in October 2020.

Now it seems that UK legislators are heading (via an indirect route) to the same destination as many European countries, including Germany: attempting to silence normal historical debate and rational argument by means of a legal cudgel. London’s perfidious method will be to avoid outright criminalisation – allowing them to pretend that they still allow free speech, while in practice seeking to gag online discussion.

The influential lobby group Hacked Off – fronted by actor Hugh Grant – has demanded that the government’s draft Online Safety Bill be amended so as to target us. Hacked Off‘s founders include the leftwing Jewish author Don Guttenplan, who attended and wrote a book about the court battle between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt, having been given special access by Irving during the trial; and former Daily Mirror editor Roy Greenslade, who wrote for many Fleet Street papers while also having a pseudonymous column for the Sinn Fein / IRA newspaper An Phoblacht. It’s quite an honour to be accused of ‘harmful extremism’ by a veteran spokesman for IRA terrorism.

Hacked Off told MPs that we “recently published a tribute to the Holocaust denier Henry Hafenmayer” but that under the draft bill, we “would likely gain an exemption” as a legitimate journalistic website. They also drew MPs’ attention to our US friends at National Vanguard, whom they similarly regard as a ‘harmful’ website that could be exempt from the draft bill.

No-one has ever suggested that the work of Henry Hafenmayer – or that of his comrades such as Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler and Ursula Haverbeck – has in any way infringed UK law.

But within weeks of the Hacked Off report, Nadine Dorries – newly appointed Culture & Media Minister in the UK’s Conservative government – agreed with the lobbyists that the draft bill had to be toughened. It is now expected to come before Parliament in March next year.

Mrs Dorries is a notorious vulgarian who in 2012 accepted more than £20,000 to appear on the crass ‘reality TV show’ I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. Less than a decade ago, her behaviour was judged so reprehensible that she was briefly suspended from her party, and forced to apologise for a breach of parliamentary standards.

Yet in 2021 British politics has sunk so low that we must accept definitions of journalistic standards dictated by the likes of Mrs Dorries, a woman who abandoned her parliamentary duties so as to earn £20,000 eating an ostrich’s anus in the Australian jungle for the entertainment of television viewers.

For the time being – but who knows for how much longer – H&D readers can judge for themselves whether the articles highlighted in Hacked Off‘s complaint to Parliament are so ‘harmful’ that they justify new laws specially drafted to target us. The three articles they mention (and helpfully link from their document so that MPs and ministers can read them, even if they wish to prevent a wider public from doing so) are:

Henry Hafenmayer – champion of German freedom – dies aged 48

Two very different wings of the anti-Islam movement

and

Did ‘racism’ win on penalties?

Rest assured that whatever the legal obstacles, we will continue – as we have now for 105 issues of the magazine – to reflect a cross-section of 21st century racial nationalist opinion. We remain confident in the survival and eventual victory of our people and their traditional values.

Festive Greetings to all Heritage and Destiny subscribers and supporters

On behalf of Peter Rushton and myself, we wish you all the very best for the festive season, whether you celebrate Christmas, the Winter Solstice or Yule. We are all members of a great family of racial nationalist brothers and sisters, and the principles that unite us at this sacred time of year are much more important than any minor differences that we may have.

Our Movement has had a pretty rough year, due to Covid and Brexit, and sadly all indications are that 2021 may be even worse. We must brace ourselves for the struggle ahead. In addition to the increased attacks on this website by left-wing hackers (who BTW have failed to bring us down since we switched server), we should expect more attacks from the enemies of Free Speech, who wish to kick us off all our social-media platforms.

But whatever comes to pass, please be assured that Heritage and Destiny magazine, will keep publishing as a hard copy, and our website will keep going online as long as our host keeps us up. We are not going anywhere, and we will adapt to continue our struggle in one form or another, no matter what obstacles our enemies throw in our path.

The next issue of Heritage and Destiny will be our 100th, and will (we hope) be printed in early January. It’s looking like it will be a bumper 40-page (compared to to the normal 24-page) issue to celebrate our anniversary, so please make sure you get a copy – and extra copies for nationalist friends.

If you are not already a subscriber please email us at heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com and we will send you a sample copy and subscription form.

And as we prepare our Traditional Dinners tomorrow, let us remember the Christmas Truce of the First World War. This truce started late on Christmas Eve 1914, when men of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) heard German troops in the trenches opposite them singing carols and patriotic songs and saw lanterns and small fir trees along their trenches. Messages began to be shouted between the trenches.

The following day, English and German Saxon soldiers met in no man’s land and exchanged gifts, took photographs and some played impromptu games of football. They also buried casualties and repaired trenches and dugouts. After Boxing Day, meetings in no man’s land dwindled out.

The truce was not observed everywhere along the Western Front. Elsewhere the fighting continued and casualties did occur on Christmas Day. Some British officers were unhappy at the truce and worried that it would undermine the fighting spirit of the Tommys to want to kill their fellow Saxons.

After 1914, the British High Command – under instructions from the usual suspects – tried to prevent any truces on a similar scale happening again, Despite this, there were some isolated incidents of Saxon soldiers holding brief truces later in the war, and not only at Christmas.

In what was known as the ‘Live and Let Live’ system, in quiet sectors of the front line, brief pauses in the hostilities were sometimes tacitly agreed, allowing both sides to repair their trenches or gather their dead.

In 1934 a Munich film studio made what became one of the most popular films of 1930s Germany – Stoßtrupp 1917 (‘Shock Troop 1917’). The closing scene of this film is set on Christmas Eve 1917 on the Western Front – three years after the 1914 Truce. This was to be the last Christmas of the war.

As can be seen in a restored online version of the film (where the final scene begins at 1h20m50s), the German filmmakers sought to capture a spirit of Anglo-German reconciliation. Click here to view the film online.

Let Saxon never kill fellow Saxon again, for the benefit of the capitalist masters. No More Brothers Wars.

I wish each and every one of you, and your families and loved ones, a happy and prosperous New Year.

As the slogan on our magazine masthead says – “Stand Men of the West, Today is the day we fight!”

Best regards from H&D Towers in Preston, Lancashire,

Mark Cotterill
Editor/Publisher

Ursula Haverbeck again given jail sentence at 92

The indefatigable campaigner for truth and justice Ursula Haverbeck – who celebrated her 92nd birthday on November 8th – was yet again sentenced by a German court last Friday, under the Federal Republic’s notorious Volksverhetzung law that prohibits discussion of certain historical subjects.
Frau Haverbeck, a writer and publisher, for many years ran the educational institute Collegium Humanum with her late husband Werner Haverbeck (1909-1999). The Collegium hosted prominent intellectuals, including the pioneering ecological author and activist Ernst Friedrich Schumacher.

In 2004 Ursula Haverbeck was fined for Volksverhetzung, and has been convicted several times for further offences, in particular for “denying” that the Auschwitz internment camp was used for the homicidal gassing of Jews. In reality many of her offences consisted simply of asking precise questions of a series of German and Jewish officials – seeking to pin down the exact allegations that are made against wartime German authorities.

Instead of answering these questions in the normal manner, these officials chose to drag Ursula Haverbeck into court, where she has several times been sentenced to prison terms. From May 2018 until last month she was imprisoned in Bielefeld, in the north-west German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Just a month later, another jail sentence – this time 12 months, though appeals will follow. Ursula Haverbeck already has pending appeals against two sentences (one of ten months, the other six) for similar ‘crimes’. The ‘offence’ for which she was sentenced last Friday was a YouTube video interview with former schoolteacher Nikolai Nerling, known as Der Volkslehrer (“People’s Teacher”).

Many Germans are prosecuted every year for Volksverhetzung. The highest profile prisoner still incarcerated is the German-Canadian Alfred Schaefer, whose sister Monika was also imprisoned for her part in ‘Holocaust denial’ videos. No-one has yet calculated how much the Federal Republic spends on detection and prosecution of such ‘crimes’. 84-year-old attorney and author Horst Mahler was imprisoned until last month despite having had both legs amputated during his sentence.

Retired Supreme Court judges Winfried Hassemer and Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem are among those who have called for the repeal of this monstrous debate-denying law.

Note: This article first appeared at the Role Model on Trial blog

Gross dishonesty of Murdoch press attack on British nationalist

We have become used to the gross dishonesty of the British press when attacking racial nationalists. A prize example is in today’s Sunday Times, which devotes half a page to the supposed ‘scandal’ that Mark Collett, a former BNP official now prominent in the ‘Alt Right’, has made money from YouTube videos.

The fact that these profits were entirely legal and normal makes no difference to Rupert Murdoch’s scandalmongers.

Typical of their sly distortion is a passage towards the end of the article:

He was tried over race-hate claims in 2006. He had reportedly said Asian men “are trying to destroy us” and had pledged to “show these ethnics the door”. The jury failed to reach a verdict.

Collett was later arrested for threatening to kill Griffin as part of a “failed coup” in 2010, but again walked free.

The truth is that the British state twice brought Mark Collett to trial at Leeds Crown Court under the race laws, in relation to secret recordings made with the help of BNP turncoat Andy Sykes for a BBC programme, The Secret Agent, but both prosecutions failed.

In the alleged ‘Griffin murder plot’ case in 2010, Mr Collett was never even charged. This arrest again stemmed from a secret recording: Mr Collett’s fellow BNP official David Hannam – a tragically weak and easily manipulated individual – recorded his telephone calls as part of an internal BNP feud. No charges were brought against Mr Collett because police forensic experts quickly discovered that the tapes had been edited, and Mr Hannam refused to provide the unedited originals.

(The reason being that the unedited originals revealed evidence of financial corruption inside Nick Griffin’s BNP.)

Ending the “reign of egoism”: Tolkien and Le Pen’s granddaughter

Dr Joseph Pearce, now a Roman Catholic scholar in the USA but probably better known to most H&D readers for his days as a young NF activist and Bulldog editor in the 1980s, has just published a preview of the forthcoming film Tolkien.

Not without reason, Dr Pearce speculates that the new film will amount to “Wormtongue’s revenge”, and will seek to impose homosexual/bisexual themes that have nothing to do with Tolkien’s life and work.

H&D is not a religious journal and we do not concern ourselves with questions of personal morality or the private lives of individuals.

However it is interesting to read Dr Pearce’s article in the context of last year’s speech by Marion Maréchal Le Pen (granddaughter of French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen) to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event where H&D used to be represented before the usual suspects ensured that our editor Mark Cotterill was excluded from the USA!

Marion Maréchal (as she now likes to be known to avoid confusion with her aunt Marine Le Pen), presented a challenge to Anglo-American conservative assumptions, which for at least the past couple of centuries have tended to be based on individualism.

Denouncing what she termed the “reign of egoism”, she pointed out:

“Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman’s womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No you don’t! A child is not a ‘right’. Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don’t want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.”

Analysing this CPAC speech for The American Conservative, Rod Dreher suggested that the contrast between Marion Maréchal’s speech and individualist philosophy normally encountered in such circles emphasised “how very, very Protestant most American conservatism is”, and that “even American Catholics are a lot more Protestant in how they think politically than they realize”. He also linked to an earlier commentary on the same speech by Michael Brendan Dougherty for National Review.

One doesn’t have to be a Catholic – or even a Christian – to get their point, nor does one have to be a racial nationalist. These ideas would be familiar academically to anyone who has read the works of Max Weber or R.H. Tawney (the latter was an Anglo-Catholic socialist).

Tolkien of course was a lifelong Catholic, and one of the underlying themes of The Lord of the Rings is the rejection of selfish power-seeking in favour of traditional community values – the values of the Shire as opposed to the values of Mordor.

H&D readers will justifiably fear that such values will either be absent or treated with postmodern contempt in the forthcoming Tolkien film.

Do we now have a Holocaust Denial law? Confusion reigns after Chabloz ruling

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism.  It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges.  The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.  H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators.  As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood.  Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt.  Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.”  As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny.  As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs.  It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case?  In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial.  This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.”  Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews.  Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago.  Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of.  Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

Pickles, honorary patron of the CAA, told the BBC’s Martin Bashir that although he had previously opposed such a law, the Chabloz case had convinced him that there should be longer sentences for ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade.  A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof.  Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”.  The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Watch this space…

Next Page »