Putinist oligarch arrested in London

NCA officers raiding oligarch Fridman’s London home two days ago.

Mikhail Fridman – one of London’s leading Russian oligarchs – was arrested at one of his two London homes on Thursday by officers from the National Crime Agency’s Combatting Kleptocracy Cell. British press reports have avoided naming Fridman.

According to an NCA statement, Fridman – a close ally of Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin – was arrested “on suspicion of offences including money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the Home Office and conspiracy to commit perjury”. A 35-year-old man was arrested in the vicinity after being observed leaving Fridman’s home with a bag containing a large amount of cash.

Later on Thursday, the former boyfriend of Fridman’s current partner was arrested at his home in Pimlico, “for offences including money laundering and conspiracy to defraud”.

(above left to right) Sir Len Blavatnik, Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch; Mikhail Fridman, arrested two days ago in London by the NCA’s Combatting Kleptocracy Cell; Lord Browne, then chairman of BP; and Viktor Vekselberg, Blavatnik’s business partner, whose yacht was seized in April this year by Spain’s Guardia Civil and US federal agents.

The NCA’s Director-General Graeme Biggar said: “The NCA’s Combatting Kleptocracy Cell, only established this year, is having significant success investigating potential criminal activity by oligarchs, the professional service providers that support and enable them and those linked to the Russian regime.
“We will continue to use all the powers and tactics available to us to disrupt this threat.”

Mikhail Fridman was born in Lviv but now holds joint Russian and Israeli citizenship. He began to build his Alfa business empire in his early 20s, in partnership with two fellow Jews – German Khan and Petr Aven – and is best known for his co-ownership of the controversial Alfa Bank and associated companies.

Since 2017 Fridman and his partners have been involved in several legal actions against the former MI6 officer Chris Steele, whose dossier alleged that they had corrupt dealings with Putin and Donald Trump.

Mikhail Fridman (third from right) standing between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky at a presentation of the Genesis Prize, which Fridman sponsors. Also in photo (second left) is Fridman’s business partner Petr Aven.

Fridman co-founded the Russian Jewish Congress and has been a major donor to Zionist causes including the European Jewish Fund and ‘Holocaust’ education projects. His Genesis Philanthropy Group sponsors an annual prize for “Jewish contributions to humanity”.

Fridman’s two London homes are 25 Cavendish Close, St John’s Wood (close to Lord’s cricket ground), and Athlone House, a mansion in Highgate, North London, that was used as an RAF Intelligence base during the Second World War. For many years pre-war it was owned by Sir Robert Waley Cohen, one of the leaders of the Anglo-Jewish community.

In 2018 Fridman addressed a Chabad “Living Torah” event in London’s exclusive Belgravia district, where he described the Torah as the “backbone” of key concepts pioneered by Judaism, including “the precedence of good over evil and the power to choose between them using free will’. No doubt following his arrest he will be given plenty of time to explain these concepts to the Combatting Kleptocracy Cell of London’s National Crime Agency.

Mikhail Fridman (above centre) addressing a Chabad event in Belgravia, London, alongside American Jewish tycoon Matthew Bronfman

Vincent Reynouard writes from his Edinburgh prison cell

Vincent Reynouard (seen here with the late Richard Edmonds who presented him with the Robert Faurisson International Prize) was a guest speaker alongside Professor Faurisson and Peter Rushton at the Professor’s final conference, organised by H&D in Shepperton, London in 2018.

Jailed French scholar Vincent Reynouard has written from the Edinburgh prison cell where he is presently detained, awaiting extradition to France where he faces several years incarceration for ‘crimes’ that are no offence under English law.

This outrageous case will be covered in detail by H&D when it comes to trial in February.

Meanwhile Vincent remains in good spirits. An English translation of his letter has been published by our assistant editor Peter Rushton at his new Real History blog. Click here to read the latest news from the jailed historian Vincent Reynouard.

Madrid authorities seek to jail H&D writer in blatant political prosecution

Madrid prosecutors aim to jail Isabel Peralta, H&D’s European correspondent, for her comments at a demonstration last year.

Isabel Peralta – European correspondent of H&D who recently addressed our meeting in Preston – is in court this week in Madrid, where the authorities aim to jail her for three years.

The case has been brought under Spain’s equivalent of the UK’s racial incitement laws, but as our assistant editor Peter Rushton explains in this article, Isabel is being targeted in blatant political machinations: not only by the Spanish government, but also by lobbyists working in the interests of the Moroccan government.

For this and other reasons which we shall disclose in a later article, the prosecution of Isabel Peralta is a disgrace to Spanish justice. If she is convicted, the matter will be appealed if necessary as far as the European Court. Spanish politicians and Moroccan lobbyists are the true criminals, working against the interests of Spain and against the interests of Europeans.

Isabel Peralta addressing H&D’s event in Preston a few weeks ago

The case dates back to 18th May 2021, when a demonstration was held outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid by a Spanish nationalist youth group. Isabel was at the time a leading activist in this group.

In an interview and speech, both of which were later broadcast on YouTube, Isabel explained the purpose of this demonstration: to draw attention to the attempted blackmail being exerted by the Moroccan Government, who were threatening to flood Spain with immigrants unless Spain accepted Moroccan control over Western Sahara.

This is a diplomatic dispute that has been going on for more than half a century, ever since Spain gave up its colonial control over the province once known as Spanish Sahara. Morocco seeks to grab the entire area for itself, but is opposed by an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.

It is in Spaniards’ economic interest to back the Polisario, partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas. But for the past two years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.

Spain’s shameless Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez being entertained by leading politicians in Morocco in April 2022 after his government’s surrender to Moroccan blackmail.

Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood, just as it fails to resist mass immigration from elsewhere.

Essentially this was the background to the demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.

Isabel’s interview and speech was making a serious and well-informed case. She explained that the demonstrators had come to the Embassy “to stand up to the indecency of our politicians who look the other way, while we suffer unprecedented racial replacement”.

She emphasised that “the problem here is not Morocco. The problem is what purports to be our own government, which with impunity sets off this explosion: the arrival of immigrants on a massive scale.”

Since politicians were not prepared to stand up to the Moroccan government’s blackmail, Spanish nationalist youth had to come forward. Isabel concluded her interview with words that require some explanation to British readers: “We shall not allow another Green March.”

Moroccan invaders on the ‘Green March’ in November 1975

The Green March – on 6th November 1975 – was the deliberate incursion by 350,000 Moroccans (organised by their government) into what was still Spanish colonial territory, in what is now Western Sahara. Because Spain was beginning its decolonisation, its soldiers were ordered not to open fire and to accept what was essentially an invasion.

So the Green March was a Spanish surrender, abandoning their responsibility to their former colonial subjects. Spain signed the so-called Madrid Accords, which effectively rewarded Morocco for their illegal invasion. (Part of the problem was that this was happening during the last weeks of General Franco’s life: he was dying and incapable of exercising any political authority.)

During her speech to the rally outside the Moroccan Embassy, Isabel picked up the theme that had concluded her interview: “Now as in 1975, they are trying again and they are coming with force, and 5,000 now seems like a lot to us, but in ten years they will seem like few, because if we do not stop them this will be our future: immigration in Europe will supplant our race, our diversity, our religion and our culture, and we are the only ones who are going to fight for it.”

The context is very clear: Isabel is correctly comparing the surrender in 1975, when the Spanish government gave in to Moroccan invaders and betrayed the indigenous people of Western Sahara, to the potential surrender in 2021-2022, when today’s Spanish government is similarly weak in the face of Moroccan threats.

Isabel addressing the Embassy rally in May 2021. Her accurate analysis of Spain’s surrender to Moroccan blackmail has resulted in Isabel herself – not treacherous politicians and lobbyists – facing trial!

It turned out that Isabel was absolutely correct. Not only has the Madrid government continued to allow floods of immigrants, it has also surrendered to Morocco’s blackmail. In March 2022, almost a year after Isabel’s comments, Spain’s socialist government carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position, abandoning the decades-long Spanish policy that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants.

The U-turn threatens vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas from Algeria.

The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.

As so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.

This time it is our correspondent Isabel Peralta who is on the frontline. As they prepared their surrender to Morocco, the Spanish authorities launched a prosecution of Isabel, which has come to court in Madrid this week. Prosecutors are asking for her to be jailed for up to three years.

In presenting her interview and speech as inciting racial violence, prosecutors have deliberately ignored its political context. They have not only deliberately distorted her speech, they have even omitted crucial words from the transcript. Isabel clearly said that the demonstration was anti-immigration, but not motivated by hatred of any race. Such hatred, she emphasised, would be absurd since our entire political outlook is based on recognition of racial differences. We are motivated, she pointed out, “by admiration and devotion to our own race in the face of a threat to its very existence”.

The political manipulation at the heart of this case is obvious from official papers that I have examined.

Mohammed Chaib (above, third left) at an official Moroccan event with his good friend Karima Benyaïch, the Moroccan Ambassador to Madrid, plus socialist MP Ricardo Garcia and Spain’s honorary consul in Morocco, Khadija El Gabsi. Chaib has extensive Moroccan business interests – an employee of his foundation brought the only criminal complaint against Isabel’s speech.

Ten days after the demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, an employee of a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. Later the same day these police officers sent a report to the prosecutors: this was the first step in the process leading to Isabel’s criminal trial.

The political police (duly followed by prosecutors) presented Ms Bencrimo’s complaint against Isabel as though it reflected a charity standing up for ordinary immigrants who felt threatened by Isabel’s words. In the entire prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages, which I have studied in detail, Ms Bencrimo’s is the only complaint from anyone outside Spanish officialdom.

Yet the organisation this complainant represented – the Ibn Battuta Foundation – is not as simple as police and prosecutors pretend.

Its president is Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, a veteran politician and businessman with close personal and financial ties to the Moroccan government – the very people whose actions were being exposed and criticised in Isabel’s speech.

Chaib is a former MP in both the Catalan and Madrid parliaments for the left-wing party PSC (Socialists Party of Catalonia). But he is also a wealthy businessman with financial interests in his native Morocco, and in particular stands to benefit from Morocco taking control of Western Sahara. Since 1992 he was been director of business development in Morocco for COMSA Industrial, a company with vast interests in engineering and construction projects in Morocco, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

Mohammed Chaib (second left) with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Chaib’s business will profit greatly from Sánchez’s surrender to Morocco over Western Sahara; meanwhile the politicised Spanish police prosecute Isabel Peralta for drawing attention to the treachery of Sánchez’s government. An employee of Chaib’s foundation brought the complaint that facilitated this prosecution.

It is a remarkable coincidence that the “charity worker” who brought the complaint against Isabel Peralta was an employee of Chaib’s foundation.

H&D fully supports our brave and brilliant comrade Isabel. We look forward to her victory over this politically motivated prosecution – however long that victory takes.

We shall be reporting further on the development of this case, and on the related political persecution of Isabel in Germany, which was assisted by border security in our own country who disgracefully detained her for more than six hours a few weeks ago during her visit to England. Check this website and our January edition of H&D for more extraordinary revelations about the state of European justice.

French scholar arrested in Scotland by ‘anti-terrorist’ police

French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, where he will remain at least until 23rd February next year, when a court will determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry. (There will be a further hearing in Edinburgh on 8th December this year, but the main case will not be heard until February.)

Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.

British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.

Despite Brexit, French prosecutors seem able to demand extradition from the UK of a man who has committed no crime under UK law.

Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.

For a detailed report on Vincent Reynouard’s arrest in the context of this disturbing European trend, visit the Real History blog for an in-depth article by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

We shall report on the case as it develops. Scottish readers able to assist Vincent should contact H&D as soon as possible.

15th November update: As a sequel to my article about Vincent Reynouard’s arrest, this morning I expose the background of the veteran politician who acted as intermediary, lobbying the British authorities to spend time and money pursuing this law-abiding French scholar.

This is the front page of tomorrow’s Herald, the Glasgow-based newspaper published since 1783 but now owned by Americans.
There is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.
The leading French nationalist journal Rivarol also has Vincent Reynouard on its front page – though unlike the Glasgow Herald, Rivarol defends traditional European freedoms.

Savage sentence on National Action founder as judge redefines ‘terrorism’

Alex Davies addressing H&D’s John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in 2014

Earlier today Alex Davies – co-founder of the national socialist youth group National Action – was jailed for eight and a half years under the ‘Terrorism Act’.

The sentence was imposed in the historic setting of Court No. 1 at the Old Bailey – perhaps the most famous courtroom in the world. Readers might imagine that Mr Davies is an exceptionally dangerous individual convicted of serious crimes involving weapons or planned acts of violence.

Yet in fact his ‘terrorism’ consisted quite simply of attempting to recreate a political organisation in a new form after it had been banned. He was never even accused of any actual or planned acts of violence, nor of any weapons offences.

National Action certainly engaged in some unwise strategies and foolish rhetoric which we have criticised on many occasions in H&D. But it’s important to realise that Alex Davies was not being tried for anything done during the existence of National Action.

His ‘crime’ was to have created a new group based in South West England and Wales after NA was banned in December 2016. Although his trial did not take place until April this year, he was arrested in September 2017 and the criminal charges were based on messages exchanged with fellow former members of NA. His new group was eventually called NS131 (which stood for ‘National Socialist Anti-Capitalist Action’).

Alex Davies at a National Action demonstration before NA was banned under the Terrorism Act

In fact it was very clear from evidence revealed during the trial that by 2016-2017 (i.e. the only period relevant to his ‘crimes’) Mr Davies was distancing himself from some of the wilder rhetoric of NA’s earlier days and adopting a more mature analysis and strategy. Yet while passing sentence Judge Mark Dennis QC repeatedly emphasised that he viewed the defendant’s crimes as particularly serious because Mr Davies is an unrepentant national socialist.

The judge said that during Mr Davies’s trial the court had been “chilled” by his description of policies of repatriation to create a “White Britain”. Of course until a couple of generations ago it would have been taken for granted that Britain was and should remain an almost entirely White country. Yet now merely to advocate such a policy is deemed part of a ‘terrorist’ outlook.

Similarly, until very recently it would have been assumed that a Briton could take whatever view he wished on historical personalities. Britain was at war with Napoleon for longer than we were at war with Hitler, but no one within the past two hundred years would have been criminalised for admiring Napoleon.

As so often, Adolf Hitler and Jews are the exceptions. Those who take a positive view of Hitler and a negative view of Jews (for whatever reason) are deemed to be a special category of thought criminal, deserving a special redefinition of ‘terrorism’.

This ‘antifa’ sticker is not seen as evidence of ‘terrorism’ but any national-socialist equivalent will get you a long jail sentence

Judge Mark Dennis also highlighted during his sentencing the fact that Alex Davies had produced a sticker showing a petrol bomb. The judge is presumably so ignorant of the recent history of nationalism and ‘anti-fascism’ in Britain that he does not know of the most famous logo of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), which showed an ‘anti-fascist’ throwing a petrol bomb!

No ‘anti-fascist’ group has yet been banned under the Terrorism Act, even though two AFA leaders were convicted and jailed for real acts of terrorism – the IRA’s bombing of Harrods – and other ‘anti-fascists’ were responsible for planting the infamous IRA bomb in Warrington that killed two young children.

Claire Fox – a long-term apologist for IRA terrorism – served as a Member of the European Parliament for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and now sits in the House of Lords as ‘Baroness Fox’. IRA veterans and their families exercise political power in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, of all the political philosophies in history only national socialism is so feared by those in power in 2022 that they have set out to redefine ‘terrorism’.

A full analysis of the Alex Davies case and its implications will appear in the next edition of Heritage and Destiny.

Real ‘anti-fascist’ terrorism did not lead to any of their groups being banned under the Terrorism Act

Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin

Ursula Haverbeck (second left) outside the Berlin court of appeal on 1st April 2022 with (left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!

After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).

Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)

Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!

Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.

When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!

Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.

After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.

MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?

Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.

MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!

Dr. Rigolf Hennig (above centre with Ursula and Michèle) – Ursula’s loyal comrade – was a freedom fighter in the early 1960s for the return from Italy of the South Tyrol for reunification with Austria. In part successful, for today children there are allowed to speak German in schools. A dedicated organizer of Europäische Aktion, Rigolf’s final action before he died last month, was to translate TBR interview by Dr. Edward de Vries with Lady Renouf on her attorney’s victory in Dresden, published in the magazine Volk in Bewegung (People in Movement). Incidentally, this TBR interview was also translated into French by the revisionist Francis Goumain and published by the Swiss revisionist Rene-Louis Berclaz in the Swiss-French magazine Courrier du Continent.

Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.

MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!

Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.

MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?

Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”

MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!

Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!

Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.

MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.

Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Wolfram Nahrath outside the Berlin court

MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!

Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.

MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?

Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.

The great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson outside one of his many court appearances

MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.

Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.

MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.

Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.

MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!

Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.

MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.

Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.

MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!

Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.

MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!

The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.

Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller (above right) with his client Ernst Zündel and Lady Michèle Renouf on the day of Ernst’s release from Mannheim prison

At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.

The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.

It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!

Michèle, Lady Renouf

Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch hit by sanctions: ex-PM and ‘Holocaust’ lobby under scrutiny

Moshe Kantor hosting a conference in Terezin, Czech Republic, where he demanded that laws against ‘Holocaust denial’ be extended across Europe

As far back as 27th February H&D raised questions about former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his favourite oligarch Moshe Kantor, a close friend of both the ex-Labour leader and the Kremlin godfather Vladimir Putin.

We pointed out that since 2015 Blair has been chairman of Kantor’s ‘European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’, which campaigns for ‘tougher laws against extremism’.

Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, or German border guards who defy their own laws and their country’s obligations under the European constitution to deport the 19-year-old student Isabel Peralta.

Invading a neighbouring country is, by contrast, not ‘extreme’: not if the invader is Moshe Kantor’s close friend Vladimir Putin.

Moshe Kantor has founded and sponsored Jewish lobby groups and ‘academic’ foundations around the world: he is now under sanctions for his ties to the Kremlin’s campaign of propaganda lies and brutal aggression against its neighbours

Yesterday – more than five weeks after we raised these questions – the British authorities belatedly acted against Kantor, adding him to their sanctions list.

Kantor’s many leading positions in international Jewry and Zionism include President of the European Jewish Council; Vice President of the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council (a registered charity); Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress; and President of the World Holocaust Forum Foundation.

In many of these roles he has worked closely with Tony Blair, who was one of the most pro-Israel Prime Ministers in UK history.

In 2015 Kantor organised a conference in the Czech Republic where he called on European governments including the UK to adopted standardised laws criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’. Defying the views of scholars and legal experts who wish to repeal these ‘historical memory laws’ that jail people for their opinions, Kantor wanted to make the laws stricter and the punishments harsher.

Tony Blair joined Kantor in promoting these arguments and demands for legal crackdowns on opinion-crime, via a major article in The Times newspaper.

The main vehicle for demanding these new debate-denial laws was the ironically named European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, with Kantor as President and paymaster, and Tony Blair as chairman.

Now Kantor himself is facing legal sanctions – not for opinions, but for his documented ties to the Kremlin’s war machine and lie machine.

Moshe Kantor and Tony Blair honouring Prince Albert of Monaco for his obeisance to the Holocaust lobby

It is now beyond dispute that for the past twenty years or more, Vladimir Putin has used Holocaust propaganda as an instrument of Russian diplomacy and as a justification for Russian military aggression.

Now is the time to ask the forbidden questions. Whatever European courts might say, it’s time to demand historical truth.

Back in 2007 – in a letter prominently published in a national newspaperH&D‘s Peter Rushton discussed the way that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had used Holocaust propaganda to pressure US governments into allowing Israel to get away with nuclear proliferation. His letter ended: “Should a self-interested version of 1940s history be allowed to dictate the nuclear power politics of the 21st century, with potentially disastrous consequences?”

In 2022 the same question becomes more urgent, and we can no longer allow the risk of prosecution in many European countries to silence that question.

In 2015 Tony Blair and Moshe Kantor demanded new laws to crack down on ‘antisemites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’.

Therefore this week H&D will launch a new website section – Real History and the True Europe – in which over the coming months we shall ask the important questions about Europe’s history and culture, including the ‘Holocaust’.

On this website, in our magazine, and in a book to be published later this year – The Dogs That Didn’t Bark: British Intelligence, International Jewry and the Holocaust (the first of a series examining aspects of Britain’s secret history with the aid of new archival discoveries) – we will examine whether, just as Moshe Kantor and Vladimir Putin have exploited ‘Holocaust’ stories for propagandist purposes, other official and unofficial propaganda agencies were behind parts of the original ‘Holocaust’ narrative in the 1940s.

We shall re-examine the work of revisionist scholars including the late Professor Robert Faurisson, including work newly available in English translation.

We shall have interviews and court reports from across Europe, as politically biased judges seek to jail nonagenarians for ‘criminal’ opinions.

And we shall reveal other political abuses of the judicial system, where a new generation of European political activist is threatened with prosecution to distract from government treachery and failure to enforce immigration laws.

This online project and publishing venture will look at many other topics besides the ‘Holocaust’, but we shall not be afraid to challenge the establishment consensus. Europe is again at war. Historical and political truth is too important for us to tolerate its restriction by the courts.

Vladimir Putin and Moshe Kantor during an ‘international forum’ that Kantor sponsored on the 60th anniversary of the Soviet ‘liberation’ of Auschwitz

Berlin appeal court confirms 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – video interview update

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) began her appeal hearing a few weeks ago where she was represented by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right).

On Friday afternoon an appeal court in Berlin confirmed the conviction and 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old publisher and author Ursula Haverbeck.

Her ‘crimes’ involved expressing her opinions on German history, and asking ‘forbidden’ questions about the alleged murder of six million European Jews and the unique ‘mass murder weapon’ of the homicidal gas chamber.

Ursula Haverbeck (above second left) with supporters at her court hearing in Berlin last Friday: (above left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

In the video below our correspondent Lady Michèle Renouf – who has been a friend of Ursula’s for many years and was in court for the final day of the appeal hearing – interviews Nikolai Nerling, known to German nationalists as the Volkslehrer, whose filmed discussion with Ursula formed the basis of one of the ‘criminal’ charges.

A further report on the case will appear here soon.

Madeleine Albright and Mossad: the Jewess who ‘thought she was a Catholic’

Madeleine Albright – the diplomat who ‘didn’t know she was Jewish

Madeleine Albright – who served as Secretary of State in Bill Clinton’s second administration from 1997 to 2001, has died in Washington aged 84.

Soon after her appointment to the top job in US foreign policy at the start of 1997, Mrs Albright ‘discovered’ that she was racially Jewish, having supposedly been in ignorance of this for her entire life. Her parents had converted to Catholicism during her infancy.

However the Israeli government certainly knew about Albright’s Jewish roots as early as 1994, soon after her appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Their source was the British publisher George Weidenfeld, who had been a friend of Albright’s father, Czech diplomat Josef Korbel, when Korbel was in a senior role with the Czech government-in-exile in London during the Second World War. (In this capacity Korbel worked with British propaganda and other secret departments.)

Madeleine Albright with Hillary Clinton

H&D can today reveal a few details of Weidenfeld’s career as a Zionist and later Israeli intelligence operative, which make it likely that Mossad was well aware of Albright’s family background for decades – almost certainly as far back as the 1970s, when she worked as congressional liaison for the National Security Council.

Weidenfeld – this close friend of Albright’s father – was closely monitored by Britain’s security service MI5, who knew of his Zionist intelligence work and were concerned that he might be engaged in subversive activities in London on behalf of the nascent Israeli state.

Although his file has not yet been published in British archives and remains entirely secret, we can reveal today that Weidenfeld had a personal file at MI5 numbered PF 604363.

Israeli intelligence operative George Weidenfeld, close friend of Albright’s father

On 27th October 1949 MI5 recorded a conversation via its regular monitoring of a line at the Israeli Legation (later Embassy) in London. Weidenfeld was speaking with Reggie Kidron, a senior diplomat who was responsible for Mossad’s intelligence work in London.

During the conversation Kidron thanked Weidenfeld for certain “contacts”, referring to a recent lunch Weidenfeld had with the senior government minister Herbert Morrison, who was later to succeed Ernest Bevin as British Foreign Secretary.

Whereas Bevin had been staunchly anti-Zionist, Morrison was far more friendly to the new state of Israel. His daughter married the advertising manager of the Jewish Chronicle (London’s main Jewish newspaper) and his grandson Peter Mandelson (now Lord Mandelson) became one of the most influential, pro-Israeli politicians in Britain during the Labour governments of the 1990s and 2000s.

Peter Mandelson (above right) on holiday with Lord Rothschild.

Weidenfeld went on to work for Israel’s first President Chaim Weizmann as “foreign affairs adviser”, before returning to London where his publishing empire served as a convenient means to pass Israeli funds to favoured politicians, in the guise of cash ‘advances’ for books that were never going to generated the sums paid.

Recipients of this largesse included Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his political secretary Marcia Williams.

As we have recently reported on this site, Wilson and Williams had close relationships with several influential Jewish businessmen who were of concern to MI5, either because of their links to Zionist intelligence, or to Soviet bloc intelligence, or their general criminality.

An original page from the ‘lavender list’ on which Marcia Williams (Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s political secretary) listed Weidenfeld among those to be given peerages – note also the name of Joseph Kagan, fraudster and suspected Soviet spy.

Several of these characters received either knighthoods or peerages from Wilson, notably in his final honours list in 1976, known as the “lavender list” because it was drafted on the personal notepaper of Marcia Williams. The Mossad operative George Weidenfeld – having earlier been knighted by Wilson in 1969 – became Lord Weidenfeld on this 1976 list.

Last week H&D‘s Peter Rushton filed a Freedom of Information request for still-secret official files about this honours list, and the cabal of businessmen and suspected spies surrounding Harold Wilson.

Weidenfeld’s Mossad contact Kidron appeared in a ‘Top Secret’ British intelligence document drawn up in December 1949, listing twenty-five individuals who had wartime access to British secrets but who were now known to be serving the Israeli government. Kidron had been Jewish Agency liaison with the South African armed forces during the Second World War, and was feared to have had access to British military secrets, in addition to his dangerous intelligence work among postwar British politicians via Weidenfeld.

Reggie Kidron’s name on a British intelligence list of suspected Jewish spies

Further aspects of our dossier on the fluctuating relationship between British and Zionist intelligence services, during and after the Second World War, will be published soon.

One strange coincidence which might disturb some on the ‘anti-Zionist’ left, is that the sister of this top Mossad officer Reggie Kidron became one of Britain’s leading Trotskyist activists.

This was Chanie Rosenberg, who died last year aged 99. She was married to the leading Trotskyist in Britain – Tony Cliff (born Ygael Gluckstein), founder of what is today the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

Even in old age, Rosenberg was an active militant ‘anti-fascist’, travelling to Burnley in 2002 to oppose British National Party election campaigning.

We wonder whether she ever told her comrades about her close family ties to Mossad?

Chanie Rosenberg – leading British Trotskyist and sister of a top Israeli intelligence officer – with her husband Tony Cliff (born Ygael Gluckstein) and family

Dodgy billionaires, Prime Ministers, and Spanish Royalty – three generations of an elite political cabal

(above left to right) Boris Johnson, now Prime Minister; Zac Goldsmith; and then Prime Minister David Cameron during a rally for Goldsmith’s 2016 London Mayoral campaign

One of Britain’s wealthiest politicians is caught in a web of political and financial intrigue, involving the former mistress of Spain’s ex-King, as well a corrupt police officer who provided private services to ultra-wealthy clients.

Zac Goldsmith – now Lord Goldsmith – is a close friend and political ally of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He allowed Johnson and his new wife Carrie to use his Marbella estate for a holiday in October last year. In 2016 Goldsmith (now married to a member of the Rothschild family) was Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.

He is mentioned in secret recordings (made a year before that mayoral election) of a conversation at a Belgravia apartment between Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (former mistress of King Juan Carlos) and a Spanish detective called José Manuel Villarejo, who boasted that he had “a better intelligence service” than the Spanish government and that for a suitable fee he could use this to protect Sayn-Wittgenstein’s interests and the interests of her friends, including Goldsmith and his brother Ben.

King Juan Carlos, later forced to abdicate, with his then mistress Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

The Goldsmiths were worried about a Spanish tax dispute – involving the very property where the Prime Minister and his wife later stayed. Eventually Spanish tax inspectors ruled that the Goldsmiths owed up to £21 million (€26 million) in unpaid taxes, and the case is still to be resolved in court.

While H&D has no idea whether or to what extent the Goldsmiths were culpable in this matter, the secret recording reveals that Sayn-Wittgenstein was asking for the corrupt detective’s help, because she said Ben Goldsmith was worried that even if there had been no crime committed, the undisputed details of the case involving properties held via obscure tax avoiding arrangements in the Cayman Islands, would mean Zac was politically “dead”.

The detective reassured her: “I have tough people, serious people, and people who don’t exist.”

Corrupt Spanish detective Juan Manuel Villarejo

He is now on trial in Spain for a wide range of bribery and corruption charges.

Zac Goldsmith is the son of Sir James Goldsmith, one of the most controversial businessmen in 20th century British history. Despite being a ‘right-wing’ Conservative and later founder of his own Eurosceptic ‘Referendum Party’ that contested the 1997 general election, Sir James obtained his knighthood in controversial circumstances from Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1976.

He was one of a group of Jewish businessmen who provided financial help for Wilson and for Wilson’s political secretary Marcia Williams (later Lady Falkender).

Sir James Goldsmith

Last week H&D‘s Peter Rushton filed Freedom of Information requests for a range of official documents involving these controversial businessmen and Wilson’s 1976 honours list that gave them peerages and knighthoods. Goldsmith was known to have been particularly close to Marcia Williams, as was another businessman knighted on the list, Sir Eric Miller, who was found shot dead in his garden on the Jewish festival of Yom Kippur in 1977.

At that time Miller was under investigation for his ties to a leading Jewish organised crime figure, former solicitor and financier Judah Binstock, who fled London to avoid prosecution and spent the last decades of his life in Marbella, not far from the Goldsmiths’ estate, becoming one of the area’s leading landowners and a serious operator in the complex world of shady business and financial crime.

Just as is now alleged with Sayn-Wittgenstein, Binstock and Miller had corrupt policemen on their payrolls, which led to one of the worst scandals in the history of London’s Metropolitan Police.

Others in the Downing Street cabal included two tycoons who were suspected by Britain’s security and intelligence services of ties to Soviet bloc intelligence – Joseph Kagan and Rudy Sternberg, who were each elevated by Wilson to the House of Lords.

Readers shouldn’t be surprised that the Spanish royal family ended up implicated in this sinister saga. As we have previously documented, Queen Ena of Spain – the British princess who was the grandmother of King Juan Carlos – was herself on the payroll of Spain’s most notorious crypto-Jewish gangster Juan March.

We shall be reporting further on this high-level political cabal as new documents become available.

This site will soon feature a special section dealing with the ongoing war for real history and the real Europe. It’s time for Britons and fellow Europeans to know the truth about their own recent history and about the men in the shadows behind our rulers.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers