New organisation for prisoners’ aid: The Link

UPDATE: Please note Simon Sheppard’s new prison address, see below.

The Link has been formed as an urgent necessity to aid victims of government anti-race laws. Since the introduction of various measures, ostensibly to combat the menace of genuine terrorism, many dissident patriots have been arrested and harassed as a deliberate act of government policy.

The Link has been formed to help ensure that those accused of ‘hate crimes’ (thought crimes) obtain the full support of our freedom loving community throughout and beyond their current ordeal.

We urgently need detailed information about anyone who has been imprisoned or threatened by the encroaching Orwellian state.

In the first instance please contact Michael Woodbridge on 01490 440418 or email tarkatheotterwestwardho@hotmail.com

Two prominent thought criminals and friends of H&D presently incarcerated are Jez Turner and Simon Sheppard. They can be contacted at the addresses below:

Jeremy Bedford-Turner, A5544EE, Wing E3-02, HMP Wandsworth, PO Box 757, Heathfield Road, London, SW18 3HU

Simon Sheppard, A8042AA, HMP Humber, Everthorpe, Brough, East Yorkshire, HU15 2JZ

 

Simon Sheppard jailed for nine months in latest ‘opinion crime’

Yorkshire-based author Simon Sheppard was jailed yesterday for the latest in a series of ‘opinion crimes’.

A judge at York Crown Court sentenced Mr Sheppard to nine months imprisonment after a jury convicted him of using “racially aggravated words” to a Sky engineer fitting a satellite dish to the next door flat in Selby, North Yorkshire.

The words were not aimed at the engineer, but referred to Mr Sheppard’s complaints against his black neighbour. The jury acquitted Mr Sheppard of waging what the prosecution had called “a two-year racial harassment campaign”.

Mr Sheppard is perhaps best known for his attempt in 2008 to claim political asylum in the USA after an earlier conviction under Britain’s infamous race laws. Neither that nor this week’s conviction would have amounted to criminal offences in the USA, where Mr Sheppard’s alleged ‘criminal’ conduct would be covered by the Constitution’s protection of free speech.

 

UPDATE: Alison Chabloz given suspended sentence for “grossly offensive” YouTube videos

Folk singer and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted this morning at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three charges relating to “grossly offensive” material on YouTube.

Judge John Zani found Ms Chabloz guilty of what he termed “serious” offences under the Communications Act 2003: he will pass sentence on June 14th after receiving probation reports. The maximum potential sentence is six months imprisonment on each charge.

Click here to read a more detailed report, analysing Judge Zani’s ruling and his dangerous failure to respond to the important issues raised in defence evidence from H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

14th June update: Ms Chabloz has been given a 20-week suspended prison sentence, combined with 180 hours community service and a 20-day “rehabilitation programme”. She has also been banned from posting to social media. The Campaign Against Antisemitism which brought the original private prosecution said in their statement following the sentencing hearing this morning:

“The case effectively delivers a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

In his personal statement, Gideon Falter of CAA repeated his earlier assertion that the verdict amounts to the outlawing of revisionism:
“This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

As explained in our detailed report, it is by no means clear whether Judge Zani’s verdict does criminalise ‘Holocaust denial’ per se, or only particular forms of such denial which are deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space…

Historical research criminalised: Paris court convicts Prof. Robert Faurisson

A Paris court on Tuesday this week gave Prof. Robert Faurisson – an 87-year-old half-French, half Scot who was Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon – a four-month suspended jail sentence and a €4,000 fine. Judgement on a further charge will be given later this week.

The circumstances of Prof. Faurisson’s trial were explained at a meeting of the London Forum in July 2016 by Lady Michèle Renouf, who was the sole defence witness alongside Prof. Faurisson at his Paris trial.

In September 2016 Prof. Faurisson was convicted under the French “racial hatred” law for the 60-word sentence translated below: the Paris court taking the extraordinary view that his reference to “the State of Israel and international Zionism” amounted to an illegal attack on Jews as a “race”.

For this “offence” Prof. Faurisson received a 4 month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €4,000. He was ordered in addition to pay €5,000 in compensation and costs to LICRA, a French association combatting “racism and anti-semitism”.

Two additional charges under the French “Gayssot Act” prohibiting “Holocaust denial”, which related specifically to Prof. Faurisson’s Tehran conference speech, were set aside.

Prof. Faurisson immediately announced his intention to appeal against this latest conviction: an appeal which is of the highest importance for historical and political researchers worldwide, and in particular for anyone campaigning against the policies of the Israeli Government. It would seem that the latest judgement opens the way for any robust criticism of Israel to be criminalised in France as anti-Jewish “racial hatred”, even if neither Jews nor Judaism have been mentioned!

Further reports and analysis of this case will appear in the next edition of Heritage and Destiny.

An earlier interview with Prof. Robert Faurisson can be seen below (including English subtitles), in which he explains the background to his famous 60-word French sentence summarising his research conclusions. Prof. Faurisson’s words (again criminalised by the Paris court this week), read in English:
“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.”

Will the real Thomas Mair please stand up?

Some of you may have seen the article – “Accused British Assassin Thomas Mair Attended Racists’ 2000 Meeting” on the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Centre) website on June 19th.

The article was written by the SPLC’s top honcho Mark Potok but the story was provided by one Todd Blodgett, a former employee of the Reagan White House administration, John Whitehouse, Liberty Lobby, Resistance Records, and now it seems the FBI!

Blodgett – whom I once knew very well as my employer, friend and fellow racial-nationalist from 1998 to 2002 – has sadly sold his soul again to the SPLC: for money for a few more lines of cocaine no doubt.

Potok (who was never one to let truth get in the way of a good story) and Blodgett then came up with the tale of Thomas Mair’s supposed links to the nationalist movement in general and the National Alliance in particular, which it is claimed brought him down to London for a “racist meeting” in May 2000.

So desperate for a few more bucks to feed his habit(s), Blodgett has invented the whole story about Thomas Mair attending this racist meeting and how Todd met and talked to him there. And how I, with my vast network of racist contacts in the UK supposedly organised the whole event from my ground-floor apartment (flat) in Falls Church, Northern Virginia. A story which the SPLC bought (literally!) from him!

Now to give Blodgett some credit he did attend a meeting of some 15-20 racial nationalist activists near the Strand, in central London – but it was not organised by me and it was certainly not in May 2000. The meeting was in fact organised by Nick Griffin, then unofficial number two in the BNP to the late John Tyndall, and was held sometime during 1998.

At that time Blodgett was working for Willis Carto at Liberty Lobby, and not as he now claims for Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance.  Carto had purchased Resistance Records from Jason Snow and George Burdi/Hawthorne a year or so beforehand but later wanted to sell it on. (I guess he did not wish his Spotlight newspaper to be associated with Skinheads anymore.)

Blodgett was in fact the middle man between Willis Carto and William Pierce (who by the way hated each other, so would not deal with each other directly – so they did the deal via Todd Blodgett, who may or may not have taken a small cut for his trouble).

Griffin with the help of then Scottish BNP activist Stevie Cartwright (Blodgett got that bit right too) got together 15 to 20 of the main players in the Nationalist music scene, who were also sympathetic to Griffin and his future challenge for the BNP leadership, to meet Blodgett and hear his plans for expanding Resistance Records into Britain and the European Market.

Whether his FBI controllers were with Blodgett at the London meeting is unknown but if I were a gambling man I would say it was very, very doubtful because:
(a) I doubt very much that he was an FBI informant back in 1998 and
(b) the American Spooks did not really take that much notice or interest in us (what they would call the far-right) until after 9/11 – and after 9/11 of course it all went rather mental!

Anyway, back to the London meeting in the Strand in 1998 (not 2000). One thing is clear after 18 years: Thomas Mair was not at that meeting, he had not been invited, and in fact nobody had ever heard of him! The meeting was for the top / key players in the scene – Mair was not even IN the scene!

Blodgett made up the story that Mair was there and fed (sold) it to the SPLC, who in turn passed it on to news agencies around the world – including our very own BBC – who have now called me twice to find out more about this Thomas Mair chap.

Amongst his fairy tales Blodgett claims that Mair was “loosely affiliated with the Leeds chapter of the National Alliance”. The NA never had a Leeds Chapter – in fact they never even had a UK chapter, though a now deceased individual in the Leeds area ran a mail order book service with NA connections. Around that time – 1998-2000 – the NA may have had 20 to 30 members in the whole of the UK, and that’s tops. They were not organised as chapters and in most cases did not even know each other.

My guess is (and I must stress this is only a guess) is that Mair knew somebody in the Batley area (maybe an NF or BNP member) who got him some flyers and/or catalogues from the NA. This person may have got these at a local NF/BNP meeting, where fringe literature from the USA was often (unofficially) passed around.

Potok goes on in his article about Mair subscribing to a “pro-apartheid South African publication”. The magazine that Mair did in fact subscribe to was South African Patriot In Exile (SAPIE) – published by one Alan Harvey, from his mother’s house in Herne Bay on the Kent coast – many, many miles away from South Africa.

Mair, in a letter he sent to SAPIE which was published in issue #31 in 1992, claimed he first got hold of their magazine via the NF. He did not say whether he wrote off to the NF and bought it from them (they did sell South African Patriot [the forerunner to SAPIE] at the time) or if he bought it at a local NF meeting in Yorkshire. Mair had a further letter published by SAPIE in issue #35 in 1995.

Strangely Potok does not mention that SAPIE was very pro-Zionist and very anti-Nazi (and still is as far as I’m aware) or that its editor Alan Harvey describes himself as “101% pro-Israel”. I guess that would not tie in well with his claims that Mair was a “neo-Nazi”.

Further on in the article Blodgett claims that Richard Barnbrook was at this “secret meeting” supposedly held in May 2000. Barnbrook first appeared on the Nationalist scene in the summer of 2000 where he was the official cameraman at the BNP’s inaugural Red, White and Blue Festival near Oswestry. Barnbrook later came to fame when he became the first (and only) BNP member to be elected to the Greater London Assembly in 2008. As I pointed out earlier the London meeting was in fact held in 1998, and Barnbrook was not there. I doubt he was even a member of the BNP then.

Potok goes on in the next paragraph to say that I was “later deported (from the USA) for his activities”. Well as anybody with half a brain cell can find out by going online, I have never been deported from the USA – or any other country for that matter. But as I said earlier, Potok was never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Just for the record I was handed a 10-year exclusion order from an immigration judge in Arlington County, Virginia in September 2002. The judge gave me three months to vacate the USA, as I had my home, job and wife there, so we needed plenty of time to sort things out. I vacated the USA with my wife Jenny at the start of November 2002 and have never returned since.

Ok, back to the “secret meeting”. Potok claims that Dr. William Pierce (leader of the NA) “had recently bought Resistance Records”. This is another lie: at the time of the meeting RR was still owned by Willis Carto.

Potok further states that he (Pierce) “would soon be releasing an electronic game to be called Ethnic Cleansing.” Another whopper of a lie here. That game was released in 2002, four years after that “secret meeting”. So ask yourself who could or would have been “giddy” (as Blodgett and Potok claim) about an electronic game that had not even been invented yet and was still four years from release?

After having spoken to Stevie Cartwright at some length about the “secret meeting” in London’s Strand back in 1998 (his memories of the era are a lot clearer than mine, well I am 55 going on 56 now!) he can categorically state that Blodgett knew no one personally at all who was invited to that meeting, either by name or by description. That being so he would not have known whether Thomas Mair had been there or not, which of course he wasn’t anyway.

Another fact exposing the lie that this meeting was held in 2000 was the fact that when Stevie Cartwright came to the USA in March 1999 to do a series of speeches and “house meetings” he also did some work in Todd Blodgett’s temporary Resistance Records office in the Woodley Park area of Washington DC. Stevie was renewing his acquaintance with Todd whom he had met before at that London meeting. So how on earth could that meeting have been in 2000? A complete nonsense!

If the truth be known, and that’s REAL truth – not some Cock and Bull Story made up by Potok and Blodgett – it might well be that Thomas Mair did have an interest in racial-nationalism, and that’s why he bought papers, magazines and books from a whole host of what the BBC would describe as “Far-Right” groups – including the National Alliance, South African Patriot and the National Front.

However, that does not make Mair a right-wing/nationalist/neo-Nazi (or whatever you want to call it) activist. Far from it, Mair was what some in our movement used to call an “arm-chair nationalist”, but now would more likely be called a “keyboard warrior”, i.e. he was the opposite of an activist – a non-activist in fact. He did nothing at all for the nationalist cause or movement in the past 15 to 20 years.

And the first time we hear of him is when he is accused of murdering the Labour MP Jo Cox on Thursday 16th June 2016.

As Todd Blodgett has chosen to put himself at the centre of this ridiculous conspiracy, either for monetary gain or as a favour to his handlers, then surely any prosecuting lawyer worth his salt would call Blodgett as a witness to the character and alleged “prejudices” of Tommy Mair. However, once the details are looked into and examined at length it would be blatantly clear that this was simply a fiction from the fevered mind of a criminal liar, fantasist and traitor who has been egged on by his bosom buddies in the SPLC hate group.

Now as anybody in the movement who knows me can tell you, I’m not one for conspiracy theories and never have been: but something is just not right here. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I – or somebody better than me – will. The real truth about Thomas Mair will come out. So Mark Potok – watch this space!

Mark Cotterill, editor, Heritage and Destiny

PS: In a few days time Heritage and Destiny will publish a further exposé of the SPLC/FBI hired liar and crook Todd Blodgett.

‘Soldiers of Odin’ defend Finns against immigrant rapists

The long-suppressed truth about assaults against European women by immigrant rapists finally broke through the media blackout in recent weeks, following what appeared to be a planned series of rapes in Germany carried out by “asylum seekers”.

In one of the most horrific incidents, a 22-year-old aid worker was stabbed to death in Sweden last week by a 15-year-old immigrant.

Several European countries have seen vigilante groups of local whites growing during the last few months: one of the largest is in Finland, where “Sons of Odin” are mobilising nationwide to defend Finnish women.

In the southern Finnish city of Tampere, for example, 4,000 asylum seekers have arrived during the last six months, and there have been dozens of reported attacks by these newcomers against local women,

“Soldiers of Odin” have a Facebook page here.

 

 

Top Tory in “racist” storm after comments on black crime

Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin – regarded as one of the main intellectual influences on the modern Conservative Party – is at the centre of a storm over “racist” comments he made in the mid-1980s.

Letwin’s remarks will be published tomorrow by the UK’s National Archives, as part of the annual release for documents from 30 years ago. They form part of a discussion at the highest levels of Margaret Thatcher’s government, following riots in October 1985 on the Broadwater Farm estate in North London, where Police Constable Keith Blakelock was butchered by a mob of machete-wielding black thugs.

While many of his fellow Tories urged liberal responses – i.e. throwing money at black ghettos – Letwin and his colleague Hartley Booth advised Mrs Thatcher:

“The root of social malaise is not poor housing, youth ‘alienation’ or the lack of a middle class. Lower-class unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale.

“Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve inner cities will founder.”

They mocked suggestions that government money should fund young black entrepreneurs:

“New entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism and neglect; and people will graduate from employment programmes into unemployment or crime.”

Booth (who eventually succeeded Thatcher as MP for Finchley from 1992 to 1997) added that the proposal to spend £10m on a “communities programme” in the riot-hit area would merely “subsidise Rastafarian arts and crafts workshops”.  He warned in a later memo that there had been reports of Broadwater Farm residents acquiring petrol bombs and napalm.

These comments by Letwin and Booth are not officially published until tomorrow, but an error by online journalists who had been given an advance briefing (on condition they did not report the contents until tomorrow) has meant the story broke early.  Predicatably leftwingers have expressed outrage.  Labour Party spokesman John Ashworth demanded a retraction:

“These offensive remarks are very concerning, particularly given his very senior position in the current Government as David Cameron’s policy supremo.

“I’m sure Mr Letwin will want to clarify these remarks and apologise as soon as possible.”

Sadly we expect Letwin will be forced to grovel: no one in the mainstream media will dare to reflect on whether his words might have been true.

8 AM update: The full Downing Street file on the Broadwater Farm riot has been published this morning and can be downloaded here as a PDF.

Thought-crime in today’s Europe

 

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz has been given a 20 month prison sentence for comments she made during a speech at a conference in Switzerland.  She has already served more than three years in prison from 2008 to 2011 for her defence of client Ernst Zündel.

Several European countries have laws that ban any questioning of the history of the ‘Holocaust’, turning the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War into a form of religious ‘truth’ that cannot be challenged.

Normal historical analysis and debate is thus condemned as a form of blasphemy, and punished by long prison sentences.  For example Horst Mahler, another German lawyer who dared to challenge established historical legends, has been imprisoned since 2009.

Sylvia Stolz’s latest ‘crime’ was committed at the Anti-Censorship Coalition Conference in Switzerland in November 2012.  A video of this ‘criminal’ speech, with English subtitles, can be viewed below:

While sentencing Frau Stolz to prison, the judge in her latest case indicated that he fully expects her to appeal, and she will not begin her sentence until the appeal process has ended.

In fact it is likely that the German authorities have created a serious embarrassment for themselves, by prosecuting Frau Stolz for pointing out facts that were actually accepted by German courts themselves when sentencing former Auschwitz guards at trials during the 1960s.  During those cases the German courts themselves admitted the absence of evidence regarding the locations of the alleged crimes of the ‘Holocaust’; the lack of any judicial findings regarding corpses or traces of the murders concerned; the lack of judicial assessment of witness statements, or of the documents or other evidence; and the lack of any documentary proof establishing the National Socialists’ intention to destroy the Jewish people in part or in whole (i.e. to commit genocide).

Yet to make these very same observations – even in the very same terms as used by the German courts themselves during the 1960s – is now a criminal act in 21st century Germany.

Though here in the UK we have not yet descended into such a Kafkaesque nightmare of bizarre criminal trials, there are attempts to extend our own notorious ‘race laws’ to encompass the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’.  Moreover the British authorities have signed up to the Stockholm International Conference on the teaching of the ‘Holocaust’, which instructed schools as follows:

“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers – do not treat the denial of the Holocaust as a legitimate historical argument, or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

Lee Rigby Memorial Walks

On Saturday 24th May two memorial walks took place for Lee Rigby, a British Army soldier of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who a year ago was attacked and killed by two African Muslims in a south London street.

This was a racial attack – as well as a political and religious attack – make no bones about it. Lee was killed pure and simply for being a White British squadie.

While others may forget very quickly, British Loyalists and English Patriots don’t and two memorial walks – one in the centre of Manchester – near to where Lee was born and lived – and the other in Woolwich south London – where Lee was stationed and sadly killed.

H&D editor Mark Cotterill attended the Manchester walk, which was led by the Bolton Caledonian Pipe band. Mark and 300 other Patriots from many different groups including, BNP, UKIP, BM, NWI, EDL, CXF EDL and EBF gathered in Piccadilly Gardens – right in the heart city centre – and marched through the busy shopping centre to the cenotaph near Manchester Cathedral. At the cenotaph a short service was held, poems read and flowers were laid in Lee’s memory. A minutes silence was held, not just for Lee, but for all British soldiers, who have lost their lives in service to their country. Special mention was made of those brave lads who fought in World War I as we are approaching the 100th anniversary of The Great War.

Even though the rain poured down all day, in typical Manchester fashion, and most got drenched (including H&D’s editor!) spirits were high amongst the 300 Patriots – including many women and children, and we would not have wished to be anywhere else that day, but in Manchester – remembering Lee Rigby, one of our own – a Lancashire Lad from Middleton, a true Son of St. George.

At the same time, down in Woolwich, South London, over 1,500 Patriots marched behind the Pride of the Somme Flute band from Liverpool through the streets of our capital city and close to the spot where Lee was attacked and killed by African Muslims.

Thankfully our comrades in London had better weather than we did in the north, and also had a much better turnout. It was great to see Patriots from many different groups and parties putting aside petty differences for one day, and joining as one, in Lee’s memory. It was also good to see many football lads from Chelsea, Millwall, Tottenham, Arsenal and Charlton, coming together and marching united as Englishmen.

In the case of Manchester, if the commies had turned up, they may have got their first decent wash of the year!And in London the sight of over 200 Chelsea and Millwall lads at London Bridge station, making their way to the walk’s formation point at Woolwich, had the anarchists almost falling over themselves to get back on the trains to their parents’ houses in Hampstead and Kensington!

* – Last Thursday, 22nd May, the anniversary of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, Tess Culnane and Richard Edmunds made a short film in tribute to the slain soldier. Here it is :

« Previous Page — Next Page »