Remembering Richard Everitt 1978-1994

Thirty years ago today, a 15-year-old boy was stabbed to death by a racially motivated gang. Most of that gang never faced justice. But Richard Everitt was not commemorated by any television series or parliamentary inquiry. On the anniversary of his death there is almost no mention of him in the press. Because Richard Everitt was White.

Richard Everitt lived and died in Somers Town, a district of London bordered by the railway stations at Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross. In the years since his murder, generations of children from around the world have visited King’s Cross because of its association with the Harry Potter novels and films.

But in 1994 Somers Town was the scene of a far darker drama, rooted in racial conflict and the failure of the multiracial society.

Richard Everitt had no interest in politics or violence. On the evening of 13th August 1994 he had been playing football with friends. On his way home, walking with two of these friends (Paul Parascandalo aged 14, and Mark Fogarty aged 17), Richard called at a local shop to buy food.

Meanwhile a much larger gang of about twenty Bangladeshis, armed with knives, was out looking for trouble. This gang was searching for a White Irish teenager (Liam Coyle) over a petty dispute. Neither the gang members nor Coyle even knew Richard Everitt, but the gang’s intention was clear: they would attack any White boy they found. Even before cornering Richard Everitt and his friends, they had stabbed another unconnected White boy, inflicting minor injuries.

As Richard and his friends walked along Brill Place (behind what is now the British Library) the Asian gang confronted them and demanded to know whether they knew Liam Coyle. They truthfully replied that they didn’t. Mark Fogarty was then headbutted. At this point he and Paul Parascandalo, recognising they were outnumbered by an armed gang, and like Richard not being the type of youths who regularly fought in the streets, ran away and escaped.

Richard Everitt was cornered, alone, and stabbed through the heart. He died soon afterwards in hospital.

Meanwhile the Asian gang escaped. One of them, 19-year-old Badrul Miah, boasted that he and his friends had “stabbed up a White boy”. He had Richard’s blood on his clothing and shoes. Miah’s stupidity and arrogance led to his arrest.

Other local Asians closed ranks. Several of the gang members were rapidly despatched back to Bangladesh by their families and have never been apprehended. Only three Bangladeshis faced trial, and one of these was eventually released on the grounds of mistaken identity. He has since become an active Labour Party politician.

Miah was convicted of murder and given a life sentence. Showat Akbar was sentenced to three years for violent disorder.

Shamefully, the usual liberal-left suspects supported the Asian gang’s defence. The Society of Black Lawyers and the Stephen Lawrence Family Campaign rallied behind Miah and Akbar, who for a while were lionised by ‘anti-racists’ as ‘The King’s Cross 2’.

The case of Badrul Miah was taken as far as the European Court of Human Rights, where part of Miah’s defence argument was that the jury had been in some way “racist”:
“No direct racial prejudice was spoken of or obviously displayed by any member of the jury, however, there was an instant assumption of guilt by many jurors that indicates certain underlying prejudice of some description.”

Miah and his co-accused Showat Akbar maintained that they had nothing to do with the attack, and that the blood on Miah’s clothing was because they had happened to come across Richard Everitt as he lay bleeding to death, during the short interval between his stabbing and the arrival of the ambulance.

Fortunately the appeal courts rejected this transparent defence, but in 2008 Miah was released after serving 12 years of his life sentence. Most of the gang (including whoever wielded the knife) have never faced charges.

Richard Everitt would today be 45, perhaps playing football with his own children. Instead he lives only in the memory of his family and friends. His father died last year.

The only memorial to Richard Everitt (paid for by his parents) has twice been removed due to redevelopment of the area around the murder site. There has been talk of Camden Council installing some form of permanent memorial.

Thirty years after this foul murder, a handful of us who were active in nationalist politics in 1994 remain active today. We shall never abandon our struggle to rebuild Britain; to recapture a country in which Richard Everitt and the many other victims of multiracialism could have lived full lives instead of being sacrificed on the altar of liberal delusions and deliberate racial replacement.

The Southport murders and the eugenics of immigration

For all the usual legal reasons, H&D has to be careful what we publish about last Monday’s horrific murders in Southport (just 20 miles from our office).

Since we cannot write specifically about Axel Rudakubana, the 17-year-old who has been charged with these crimes – and since individual crimes, however horrific, are not in any case a sound basis for political debate – let us instead look at broader issues.

Does it make sense for the UK to admit refugees from Rwanda, a country that was scarred during the 1990s by one of the most bestial civil wars in history?

Rwanda was never a British colony, so (for once) none of its ills can be laid at the door of the British Empire. For several decades it was part of the Kaiser’s German empire, and after Germany’s defeat in the First World War it fell under Belgian control until independence.

But for more than 60 years Rwanda has been independent: its troubles can be blamed on Rwandans themselves, no-one else.

There are very few Muslims in Rwanda: aside from tribal religions, the country is divided between Catholics and various Protestant denominations, with a large minority following Seventh Day Adventism.

Refugees from Rwanda would have to cross at least four other African countries before they reached Europe, so by no stretch of the imagination could the UK be deemed the first ‘safe country’ that they reached.

So why would Rwandans end up in the UK and is it reasonable for them to be granted leave to remain?

Note that many such cases appear to date from the 1990s, long before the recent ‘small boats’ crisis, and even before the justly reviled Tony Blair opened the immigration floodgates still further.

In other words, Rwandan immigration has nothing to do with the Nigel Farage and ‘Tommy Robinson’ agenda. These opportunists hate to talk about racial realities, but there comes a point where this is a duty.

Did it ever make sense for Britain to admit large scale African immigration, and did it ever make sense to call an African ‘English’?

Back in the 1940s, under the Labour government of Clement Attlee which is supposedly venerated by Keir Starmer and his ministers in 2024, it was assumed that Africanisation of our country was unthinkable.

The Fabian Society – a socialist think-tank closely tied to the Labour Party – reported in 1945 on what immigration policy would be best suited to rebuilding war-torn Britain:

“From the population point of view we need to encourage potential parents of healthy stock to settle in the British Isles, and to discourage those whom we already have from leaving.”

The Labour-Fabian approach was clear: the precise opposite of today’s great replacement. And we should note that the authors of this report were far from being ‘nazis’ – they were left-wing socialists. The chairman of the committee producing this report was an Anglo-Jewish academic, Dr William Robson, and his committee included the pioneer feminist Eva Hubback (who was related to the leading Anglo-Jewish families Spielmann, Montagu, and Sebag-Montefiore).

The Fabian report continued:

“Men and women of European stock, between the ages of 20 and 30, are the immigrants best suited to assist population policy. …The utmost care should, of course, be taken to admit only those physically and mentally sound, and free from criminal records, who will introduce a sound stock into the country. The eugenics of immigration cannot be over-stressed.”

A Royal Commission appointed by Attlee reported in 1949, along similar lines to these Fabian views:

“Immigrants on a large scale into a fully established society like ours could only be welcomed without reserve, if the immigrants were of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the local population and becoming merged with it.”

Note the apparent assumption that black immigrants would (in practice) not be appropriate for intermarriage with native Britons.

At what point was this common sense attitude abandoned by the British Labour Party? And were the British people ever consulted?

We shall examine these questions in part two of this article in a few days’ time.

Political prisoner Sam Melia barred from access to his children – a new low for British ‘justice’

Sam Melia, Yorkshire organiser of Patriotic Alternative, who is presently serving a two year prison sentence for the ‘crime’ of distributing anti-immigration stickers via Telegram, has now been told that he is no longer allowed contact with his children.

This decision has been made not by a court, but by the prison authorities at HMP Hull, in collaboration with bureaucrats from the National Probation Service. Sam was moved from Leeds prison to Hull two weeks ago.

As many H&D readers will know, Sam and his wife Laura Towler (deputy leader of PA) have a two-year-old daughter Catherine, and a month-old baby Violet.

There has never been any suggestion that the ‘crimes’ for which Sam was convicted have any connection to children in any way; nor has he ever even been charged with any offence relating to children. Even Sam’s worst enemies would concede that he has been a loyal and hard-working father.

But the prison and probation authorities have now decided – for entirely political reasons – to classify Sam as a Person Posing Risk to Children (PPRC).

When asked the reasons for this wicked lie, the authorities admit they do “not state he poses a direct risk of serious harm to children, but by the child/ren being exposed to posters, insignia, literature and attitudes assessed as racist and offensive.”

Remember, this is a man who is in a prison cell in Hull, where quite obviously he has no access to “racist and offensive” material. Moreover, no reasonable person could imagine that a two-year-old child and a one-month-old baby could be influenced (for good or ill) by political material, whether “racist” or of any other kind.

But the authorities’ ukase bars Sam from being visited by his infant children; receiving phone calls or photographs from them; or even from receiving news about them from his wife (or from anyone else).

As Laura wrote yesterday on the PA website:
“These restrictions are complete overkill for a ‘criminal’ such as Sam and amount to nothing more than the political persecution of a loving father and husband. Sam is heartbroken at the prospect of not being able to see his children and although our newborn baby has no idea what’s going on, our toddler is confused as to why she’s no longer allowed to see or talk to her daddy.”

Due to having been identified as a ‘PPRC’, Sam will automatically be subjected to these appalling restrictions until an ‘assessment’ of his case is carried out by prison and probation bureaucrats. This process has now started, and to begin with Sam had to complete forms for each of his children, explaining why he believed he was entitled to be in contact with them.

As Laura points out, they now have to wait for the bureaucracy to grind out its judgment, which could take weeks or months. “This means that Sam will miss out on maintaining a strong relationship with our toddler, building a relationship with our newborn baby, and our children will miss out on seeing and speaking with their dad.”

H&D encourages our readers to contact HMP Hull, explaining why Sam Melia’s treatment is an outrage to all normal standards of justice and decency. Please use polite language despite the provocation!

The prison governor, Mr Shaun Mycroft, can be contacted either by email at candc.hull@justice.gov.uk or by post at the following address:
Complaints and Correspondence Hull
HMP Hull
Hedon Road
Hull
HU9 5LS

As with any correspondence referring to Sam Melia’s case, please quote his prison number: A3370FC.

Readers should also be aware that on 9th June, Sam will be celebrating his 35th birthday – behind bars, and now without access to his children (or even to news about his children).

Birthday cards can be sent to Sam at the following address:
Samuel Melia
A3370FC
HMP Hull 
Hedon Road
Hull
HU9 5LS

We would also encourage all readers who have not already done so, to sign the Free Sam Melia petition which is online here.

Backdoor criminalisation of revisionism confirmed by Scotland’s most senior judge

This afternoon in Edinburgh the President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, rejected the appeal against extradition to France of Vincent Reynouard, the exiled scholar whom Parisian courts seek to jail for his research questioning orthodox history of the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘massacre at Oradour’.

Regular readers of H&D and the Real History blog will be familiar with the background to the case. Vincent was arrested in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther in November 2023 and has been held in Edinburgh jail for the past fourteen months, despite not being charged (let alone convicted) of any crime under UK law.

France is one of many European countries which criminalise any historical and scientific research questioning the orthodox version of the ‘Holocaust’: the alleged murder of six million Jews in presumed homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War. But Parliament has deliberately avoided passing any such law in the UK. Instead, UK courts – including now Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge – are engaged in a cowardly criminalisation of revisionism via abuse of other laws such as the Communications Act, and via abuse of the extradition process.

This conveniently avoids any parliamentary debate on the merits of the revisionist case. Though the historicity of the ‘Holocaust’ was not a legal point at issue during the trial, and though he has not indicated any competence of his own on historical matters, Lord Carloway assumes the right to declaim on “the patent falsehood” of Vincent’s work. Lord Carloway makes statements about the Auschwitz death toll and about the notorious ‘confession’ of camp commandant Rudolf Höss, though no expert witness testimony was adduced at any stage of Vincent’s extradition process about these matters.

Lord Carloway does not himself claim personal expertise in 20th century history and does not indicate that he has carried out even a single hour of documentary research on such topics. Notably he relies on the Höss ‘confession’. In what other case would Lord Carloway be happy for a Scottish court to rely on a ‘confession’ obtained by torture and blackmail, or on submissions concerning the scene of the crime that were provided by the Kremlin’s military and intelligence services?

The version of history laid down by the Nuremberg trial – instituted by the victors of the Second World War, and largely based on ‘evidence’ by a Kremlin-controlled ‘commission’ – is protected in France by the ‘Gayssot Law’ enacted in 1990, appropriately enough on the initiative of a French Communist MP allied to a millionaire Jewish socialist.

This ‘Gayssot Law’ was designed to criminalise the work of the pioneering revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson, who though born in Shepperton, West London, to a Scottish mother and French father, lived and taught in France throughout his adult life, latterly as Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon.

From the mid-1970s until the day before his death in 2018, Professor Faurisson wrote and published detailed research into the alleged ‘gas chambers’, summarising his conclusions in a famous sentence:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

It is a curious coincidence that the Court of Session judgment rejecting Vincent Reynouard’s appeal was delivered one day after Professor Faurisson’s birthday, and a few hours before what has in recent years become a worldwide festival of historical ‘remembrance’ – Holocaust Memorial Day. In 1995 Faurisson directly addressed “Auschwitz: the facts and the legend” in an essay now available online at the Robert Faurisson website.

Vincent Reynouard spoke at the conference in October 2018 – organised by H&D in Shepperton, the Professor’s birthplace – at which Robert Faurisson gave his final speech, a day before his death. Vincent (who was awarded the Robert Faurisson International Prize in 2020) is today’s leading representative of the Faurissonian tradition of scholarly re-examination of the ‘Holocaust”s evidential basis, while the courts (both in Paris and now sadly in Edinburgh) have abandoned scrutiny of evidence and now prefer to genuflect in submission to ‘Holocaustianity’.

Most of the Western world has moved away from organised religion, but ‘Holocaust’ memorialisation has become a pseudo-religion, with Auschwitz-Birkenau as its Calvary and anti-revisionist legislation as the new blasphemy laws.

Though the UK has no such laws, Lord Carloway affirms in his judgment that Vincent’s online publications are extraditable offences because they can be deemed “grossly offensive” under s.127 of the Communications Act 2007. This is an updating for the internet age of a law originally designed to criminalise obscene telephone calls.

In this instance, the law has been stretched to cover offending “members of the Jewish and other communities whose members perished at Auschwitz and Birkenau.  The same applies to those living with the memory of Oradour.  It is not necessary to be a member of the relevant communities to be grossly offended by such statements; any reasonable person would be.”

Lord Carloway makes the dire implications clear: “Although it is not an offence to hold these views and, in certain contexts, to express them, it is a breach of section 127 of the 2007 Act to communicate them to the public on the internet.”

By Lord Carloway’s implication, online revisionism is to be deemed criminal in the UK, even when expressed in scholarly terms, and even without a specific parliamentary statute.

This is a blatant attack on fundamental human rights: an attack on the basic principles not only of UK law but of European civilisation’s accepted intellectual standards.

We shall report soon on the next stage in the fight for Vincent Reynouard’s freedom and the fight for real history.

Sam Melia convicted in latest abuse of UK race laws

Yesterday afternoon Sam Melia, Yorkshire regional organiser of Patriotic Alternative, was convicted at Leeds Crown Court on two charges relating to racial nationalist stickers distributed via the Telegram social media platform. He will return to court for sentencing on 1st March.

One charge was under the UK’s notorious laws against “inciting racial hatred”, a concept which the courts now seem to interpret very widely. Legal sources have confirmed to H&D that the stickers for which Sam was convicted would not in the past have been expected to warrant prosecution.

The other charge was of “encouraging racially aggravated criminal damage”. This is again a cynical abuse of UK law by the authorities. Older readers will remember that similar ploys began to be used in the 1990s against the British National Party (then led by John Tyndall). BNP officials were in those days summonsed by local councils holding them responsible for removing stickers from public property such as lampposts and bus shelters, even though other stickers (including “anti-racist” political ones) are commonly displayed in such places.

As racial nationalists we shall need to consider our options very carefully in the light of the apparent determination of police and prosecutors to act as enforcers of an ever more restrictive political orthodoxy.

For now, we are sure that all of our readers will join the H&D team in sending our best wishes to Sam and his wife Laura (PA’s deputy leader) who are presently expecting their second child.

H&D is not part of any political party or group, and we realise that while some readers are PA members, others have had (and continue to have) differences with PA.

Nevertheless, we are confident that all readers will recognise that the prosecution of Sam Melia is an attack not only on PA but on the rights of all British racial nationalists.

Now is not the time for factional debate. Now is the time for total solidarity with our comrades Sam and Laura.

PA have set up a fundraiser to allow the Melia family a holiday before what seems almost certain to be a custodial sentence.

Judge Tom Bayliss has already threatened Sam that “if you start making your views publicly on this [sic], it will not go well for you.” So we must make clear that the views we have posted about this trial on the H&D website or elsewhere are our own words, not Sam’s.

Another disturbing feature of the case (which is typical of several recent political cases) is that police and prosecutors have tried to imply that holding pro-fascist or national socialist political views, or having certain opinions about political history, is itself illegal.

It is not illegal in the UK to take a positive view of Sir Oswald Mosley or Adolf Hitler. It is not illegal in the UK to be a fascist or a national socialist. We note that the “experts” of the Crown Prosecution Service cannot even spell Mosley’s name, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by anything.

Irish rebels lack leadership in rebellion against multiracialism

There was further trouble on the streets of Dublin last night after Thursday night’s riots, with citizens (especially from the poorer social classes) rebelling against the multiracial melting-pot that has been forced on them by their leaders.

On Thursday afternoon an immigrant stabbed three children and a school care assistant outside a primary school. It’s believed that their assailant was an “Irish citizen” of Algerian origin. One of the children, a 5-year-old girl, is critically ill in hospital.

Whatever the particular circumstances of this appalling attack, it ignited an explosion of opposition to the broader transformation of Dublin into a “multicultural” society that no-one voted for.

The supposed “Irish nationalist” party Sinn Fein (political wing of the terrorist IRA) are the big losers from this situation. Not only have they failed to represent the views of their core working-class voters, they have also failed to control the streets – an unparalleled humiliation.

H&D understands that in some areas Sinn Fein representatives were literally chased away by angry local residents!

However – contrary to all the rhetoric from police, mainstream politicians and the media about the “far right” – the truth is that there is no organised “far right” capable of stepping into the power vacuum.

The poorer elements of Dublin society who are confronted every day by the consequences of multiracialism foisted on them by political elites (including Sinn Fein) are entirely lacking leadership.

“Far right” political parties and movements in Ireland are little more than a joke, as should be evident to H&D readers from the debate between Justin Barrett and Ian Freeman in our present issue.

One or two Irish nationalists have a high online profile and have written penetrating critiques of the kosher right-wing (for example exposing Tommy Robinson and his recent antics), but they have little or no influence within Ireland and represent no meaningful political organisation.

It has been left to football hooligans and other gangs to lead the fightback on Dublin’s streets, and the inevitable consequence is that the present riots are likely to burn themselves out, without creating any serious political momentum.

Lions led by donkeys.

Politicised policing in the UK

Home Secretary Suella Braverman – who was being applauded by some racial nationalists only a week ago after a speech about immigration – has wasted no time in seeking to politicise the response of UK police officers to the developing war in Palestine.

Braverman is the daughter of Indian immigrants who moved to Britain during the 1960s. She is married to a Jewish businessman, Rael Braverman.

And she has obvious ambitions to succeed her fellow Indian Rishi Sunak as the UK’s Prime Minister.

Today Braverman abandoned any pretence that her party is interested in a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement.

Writing to Chief Constables across England and Wales, Braverman reminded them that support for Hamas is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, which means that even wearing certain symbols can lead to a jail sentence in the UK. (See Saturday’s H&D article written within hours of Hamas breaching Israeli security.)

But she went further. In a blatant attempt to silence political debate, Braverman now seeks to criminalise one of the slogans most widely heard on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. She told Chief Constables:
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.”

Braverman even suggests that displaying a Palestinian flag at a demonstration should in some circumstances be regarded as a criminal offence.

Perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary used this letter to suggest to Chief Constables that (for the first time in the UK) possession of a swastika symbol should be treated as a criminal offence, in the context of a pro-Palestinian demonstration.

In most cases, H&D readers would probably deprecate the use of swastikas at such events, as they are almost always used by leftwing anti-Zionists in the context of suggesting an equivalence between National Socialism and Zionism. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary’s suggestion – that simple possession of a swastika symbol should be a criminal offence – is a dangerous development and one which should be resisted by all legal means.

Our readers will not be surprised to see that Braverman highlighted the “close collaboration” between English and Welsh police forces and the ultra-Zionist lobby group Community Security Trust (CST).

CST grew out of the violent anti-fascist 62 Group which specialised in physical attacks on British nationalists during the 1960s. CST’s founder Gerald Ronson was in charge of finances for the 62 Group, working alongside its “field commander” Cyril Paskin and its intelligence chief Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight. Gable and two other 62 Group operatives were convicted for an illegal entry into the home of historian David Irving, where they aimed to steal documents.

Paskin, Ronson, and Gable planned many acts of political thuggery. One of the last 62 Group operations was in November 1971, when the 62 Group attacked a conference in a Brighton Hotel organised by the Northern League, an academic racial nationalist group. Paskin and others received suspended prison sentences for affray.

Some years earlier, Gerald Ronson was convicted of a politically motivated assault on a member of Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement.

During the mid-1960s, the 62 Group evolved into a more politically focused group called JACOB, which in turn evolved into CST. The development of JACOB was advised by Monica Medicks, an Israeli intelligence officer who had previously been a member of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun.

Unlike Suella Braverman and the Conservative Party, Heritage and Destiny supports the interests of Britons and Europeans rather than Israelis.

European nationalists have different views on the Middle East. But our movements – and future nationalist governments in Europe – will act in the interests of Europeans and will never prostrate ourselves as the uncritical tools of international Zionist lobbies. Especially not lobbies with a long record of anti-European, anti-nationalist violence.

Both Braverman and her political opponent Jeremy Corbyn are playing games with the issues of “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Corbyn persistently lies about the historical events of Cable Street in 1936 (where Jews and Communists fought London police in an effort to obstruct a march by Mosley’s supporters), and as we recently reported, he took the extraordinary step of writing to Braverman to pressure the Home Secretary into banning our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering the UK.

And now we see Braverman herself seeking to criminalise anti-Zionism and extend the UK’s criminal law into other areas of previously legitimate political debate.

H&D will of course try to stay within the law at all times. But Braverman is playing a dangerous game: her present trajectory is likely to force a confrontation in which not only British nationalists, but people of various political persuasions critical of Israel are dragged into court. If this happens, she can expect to be fought at every level, from the streets of Britain to the European Courts.

Who are the real ‘terrorists’? H&D’s Peter Rushton investigates…

The day before this year’s Heritage and Destiny meeting, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was again detained for more than four hours by border security at Manchester Airport, using Schedule 7 of the UK’s Terrorism Act. Her telephone and computer were seized and examined for two days by officers from the highly politicised Counter Terrorism Command (SO15, formerly Special Branch) who work closely with the British security service MI5.

This follows a similar procedure last year – another act of blatant political harassment. Needless to say no charges followed, because Isabel has committed no crime under UK law. It is not a crime in the UK to be a national socialist; it is not a crime to defend the honour of the División Azul (the brave Spanish volunteers who fought alongside the German Army in defence of Europe’s eastern frontier against Stalin’s barbarians); it is not a crime to dispute historical myths (however many well-funded lobby groups promote those myths); and it is not a crime to oppose the desecration of the grave of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the great Spanish patriot and Falangist leader.

Yet the ‘anti-fascist’ Searchlight magazine has begun a campaign to pressure the Home Secretary, claiming that Border Force harassment of Isabel Peralta was insufficient! They are demanding that this brave and determined patriot – leading light of a new generation of Europeans who are unafraid to stand up for our civilisation – should be excluded from the UK!

And they have the chutzpah to compare Isabel to the waves of illegal immigrants who flood our borders daily, from every corner of the world, and who are wholly alien to European culture and traditions.

It’s time to ask: just who are these ‘anti-fascists’, and who are the real terrorists?

Searchlight is proud to trace its origins from the militant gangs of Jews and communists who fought against Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and National Socialists during the 1930s. This violent Jewish-communist alliance (including some of London’s most notorious gangsters) boasted that one of its regular tactics was to embed razor blades into potatoes and hurl them at British fascists, policemen, and police horses.

More precisely, Searchlight claims descent from the more secretive but equally violent postwar alliance of Zionist Jews and Communists known as the 43 Group, who carried out undercover infiltration of British nationalist groups, as well as burglaries and violent assaults.

One critically important but often overlooked fact is that the 43 Group’s ‘anti-fascist’ violence coincided with a campaign of bombings and assassinations directed by one of the world’s most brutal networks of terrorist killers – Jews who fought against the British Empire as well as against Arab civilians from 1945 to 1948, so as to establish what is now the state of Israel.

In fact the very name of the 43 Group – contrary to many lies told in books about anti-fascism – was derived from a celebrated case of 43 paramilitaries who were arrested by the British authorities in Palestine in October 1939, just weeks after the start of the war. In a cynical act of political opportunism, even after the British Empire had declared war on Adolf Hitler, Jewish paramilitaries were illegally training to fight their own war, if necessary against the British. Only intense political pressure saved these 43 Jews from a long jail sentence.

After naming their group after these illegal Jewish trainee terrorists, many ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group operatives went on to work with Zionist terror gangs who were explicitly targeting British servicemen and civilians. For example Samuel Landman – a crooked solicitor and former secretary to the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann – worked for the Irgun terrorist group (responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel), supplying political intelligence from within the British establishment.

Landman’s children Deborah and David were both involved with the ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group, and with Irgun terrorism. They were directly responsible for arranging a plot to murder General Sir Evelyn Barker, former commander of British forces in Palestine. These two 43 Group members (together with future Israeli President Ezer Weizman and a Jewish South African pilot, Boris Senior) made detailed plans to murder Sir Evelyn at his home – a plot they abandoned due to police surveillance.

Other victims of the Jewish terrorists were not so lucky. In May 1948 a young student, Rex Farran, was murdered by a parcel bomb at his family’s home near Wolverhampton. The bomb had been intended for his brother, an SAS war hero who had been too effective (from the Jews’ point of view) in postwar anti-terrorist operations in Palestine. The Jewish gang responsible for Farran’s murder were never apprehended.

Another member of the same gang planted a bomb inside a servicemen’s club near Trafalgar Square in March 1947. This ruthless terrorist escaped to Paris, where he was protected by fellow Jews and ‘anti-fascists’ including the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. The bomber is still alive, after spending an uninterrupted career in French academia – he is Professor Robert Misrahi, an active Zionist and ‘anti-fascist’.

Misrahi and his fellow terrorists were never troubled by the British police despite having exploded bombs on British soil. One of their number even plotted to infect London’s water supply with cholera, using contacts among Jewish scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

Such are the terrorists from whom today’s ‘anti-fascists’ proudly trace their heritage.

Searchlight is directly descended from the intelligence arm of the 43 Group’s successor, the 62 Group, founded by Jews and communists in 1962 to mount violent attacks on British political movements led by Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, and John Bean.

Part of the 62 Group’s training came from an Israeli intelligence officer – Monica Medicks – who had direct experience of postwar Zionist terrorism, having volunteered soon after the Second World War to join the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the group responsible for many terrorist atrocities including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 91 people.

Her husband Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) was a commander of Mahal (‘Volunteers from Abroad’) recruiting Jews from around the world to fight for the new Zionist state in 1948. Oddly, once this state was secured, Stanley and Monica Medicks chose not to stay in Palestine, instead moving first to Kenya (where Stanley Medicks had been born) then somewhat ironically fleeing from the anti-British, anti-White terrorism of the notorious Mau Mau and settling in London, where Stanley was on the surface a used car dealer, but both he and his wife worked in various roles for Israeli intelligence.

Monica Medicks – the anti-British terrorist turned Israeli intelligence officer and militant London ‘anti-fascist’ – went on to advise JACOB – the Jewish Aid Committee of Britain – which in the spring of 1966 circulated proposals within the Jewish community for a new, aggressive Jewish strategy. Metropolitan Police Special Branch monitored this new form of Jewish extremism, just as they had the 62 Group.

Eventually JACOB evolved into today’s very respectable ‘Community Security Trust’, a Jewish lobby group that works closely with the British police and security services. CST’s founding chairman, Gerald Ronson, is now friendly with British aristocrats and royalty, despite having been a 62 Group thug, and having been convicted for a violent assault on one of Sir Oswald Mosley’s followers. Ronson was a close friend and ally of the 62 Group’s intelligence officer, former Communist Party candidate Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight, leading the campaign to paint Isabel Peralta as a criminal.

While Isabel Peralta has no criminal convictions, Ronson and Gable have several criminal convictions between them. In addition to his conviction for politically motivated violence, Ronson served several years in prison for his leading role in one of the City of London’s most notorious fraud cases, while Gable was convicted alongside two fellow ‘anti-fascists’ for illegally entering the home of the British historian David Irving, with the objective of stealing documents.

In later years, Searchlight developed close ties to other offshoots of extremely violent anti-fascism, notably ‘Anti-Fascist Action’. Searchlight‘s main northern operative – Steve Tilzey – was imprisoned for his part in kidnapping a young National Front activist. Passing sentence the judge told Tilzey and his fellow conspirators, who included leading figures in the Trotskyist ‘Socialist Workers Party’: “the weapons you took with you are quite dreadful, capable of inflicting the most serious injuries and of killing in many cases.”

One of Tilzey’s right-hand men in Manchester anti-fascism was a notorious gangland assassin: Dessie Noonan, who was later murdered by a fellow drug dealer.

Yet more serious violence was carried out by another of Searchlight‘s allies in Anti-Fascist Action, one of its leading London militants, Patrick Hayes, who was given a 30-year jail sentence for planting an IRA bomb outside Harrods, the famous store in central London. Another of Hayes’s fellow ‘anti-fascists’ – Liam Heffernan – was jailed for 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of another Irish terrorist group, the INLA.

Throughout this period, Britain’s most militant ‘anti-fascists’ were often also involved with Irish terrorism, just as their predecessors had been active in Jewish terrorism against British targets.

Probably the worst crime committed by ‘anti-fascists’ working with the IRA was the Warrington bombing in 1993 which killed 12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball.

Yet after these decades of association with some of the worst thuggery and brutality in British political history, ‘anti-fascists’ dare to campaign against a young woman whose only ‘crime’ is to express political and historical views that they disagree with.

We have this message for ‘anti-fascist’ bullies and their financial backers: Heritage and Destiny will support our brave comrade Isabel Peralta at whatever level necessary to defeat your campaign of intimidation. Whenever you lie about Isabel to induce British ‘anti-terrorist’ police to harass her, we shall respond with the truth about your own terrorist friends and connections going back many decades.

We are confident that no police force, no sinister security agency, and no financial string-pulling will defeat the truth.

The true Europe represented by Isabel Peralta will defeat the alien-imposed anti-European order of lies and chicanery.

Time for ‘tolerance’ to end

The annual festival of street crime known as the Notting Hill Carnival has become difficult to report rationally, without risking offences against Britain’s notorious race laws.

But there are signs that this year traditional British ‘tolerance’ – in other words craven weakness – is at last wearing out, even among some sections of the mainstream press.

At least eight people were stabbed during yesterday’s carnival, and a police officer was sexually assaulted.

Rival gangs confronted each other in the streets of Notting Hill: at least one yob was armed with a machete.

More than fifty police officers suffered assaults (including at least six who were bitten by people who could fairly be described as animals) as they made more than 300 arrests.

It’s very difficult for H&D to give an accurate description of these criminals without breaking the law – and we have no doubt that the race laws would be enforced against us a lot more rigorously than public order laws are enforced against Notting Hill’s revellers.

But we can say this. A large part of this year’s Carnival was devoted to celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought the first large influx of Afro-Caribbean immigrants to London. And it seems that the criminals who rampaged on Notting Hill’s streets yesterday – and each of the armed gangs who confronted each other – were of a type that would barely have existed in our capital before the Windrush.

We leave it to readers to decide whether the legacy of the Windrush is something to celebrate.

One aspect that is worth emphasising – especially to readers unfamiliar with London – is that Notting Hill is very atypical of those many European cities that frequently see violence involving recent arrivals. Most such areas (even in London) are relatively impoverished. The rich and influential rarely have to live with the consequences of those policies of ‘liberal tolerance’ that they promote.

Notting Hill used to contain many pockets of poverty but it’s now an affluent area. The former slums once owned by the notorious gangster Peter Rachman (himself a Central European immigrant of rather different ethnicity), and which were once a magnet for Afro-Caribbeans, have now been gentrified and are worth a fortune. Very few of the Afro-Caribbean revellers who descend on Notting Hill for Carnival now live in the area.

Bankers, stockbrokers, journalists and politicians are now confronted annually by filth, noise and disorder (if they are lucky), or violent crime (if they are unlucky), literally on their doorsteps.

Will this herald a turning of the political tide? Or is the British political and financial elite incurably masochistic as well as corrupt?

Nationalist podcaster jailed – James Allchurch prison address update

James Allchurch, the prolific nationalist podcaster better known as Sven Longshanks, was sentenced this week to two and a half years in prison after his conviction for ‘inciting racial hatred’.

This related to his podcasts on Radio Albion, previously titled Radio Aryan, where Sven has interviewed many prominent nationalists over the years, including H&D‘s assistant editor.

Many readers will know that James / Sven is a dedicated racial nationalist who has used his technical skills to assist comrades over the years, regardless of faction.

The fact that he has been jailed under the UK’s notorious race laws is a tragic reflection of the way that free debate has been curtailed since passage of the first Race Relations Act in 1965. Restrictions on political discussion have been steadily tightened during recent decades. Right-wing Tories and civic ‘nationalists’ bleat about ‘freedom’, but will do nothing to repeal these oppressive laws.

Today’s court judgment is yet further evidence that a serious racial nationalist effort is long overdue.

From issues 92 to 95 of H&D, Peter Rushton wrote a comprehensive history of the development of race law prosecutions in the UK. On the basis of detailed archival research, these articles demonstrate the way that traditional British freedoms were undermined.

We are confident that H&D readers will give James their full support.

James Allchurch has been sent to HMP Swansea in South Wales, where he is likely to serve most of his sentence.

H&D readers can write to James and send him letters of support to this address;
James Allchurch – #A5903EY
HMP Swansea
200 Oystermouth Road
Swansea,
SA1 3SR

Please note that you must include your name/address/post code on the letter, otherwise the prison authorities will reject it.

A fundraising account has been created for James/Sven by his comrade Sam Melia of Patriotic Alternative. Online donations can be sent via https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportSven

Or cash can be sent to the following address:

PO Box 275, Pudsey, LS28 0FQ
(Please specify it’s for Sven)

Next Page »