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

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.

Blair’s unusual silence explained

Tony Blair with his patron Moshe Kantor, one of Vladimir Putin’s closest Jewish oligarch allies and main sponsor of the World Holocaust Forum

Many readers have wondered why Tony Blair has been remarkably quiet so far about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Look no further than Blair’s very close relationship with one of Putin’s favourite billionaire Jewish oligarchs, Moshe Kantor. Among many prominent positions in international Zionism, Kantor is President of the European Jewish Congress and Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress.

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

Vladimir Putin with his close ally Moshe Kantor

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.

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

Roman Abramovich, another of Putin’s favourite oligarchs, ostracised in Britain but defended by Israel’s ‘Holocaust museum’ Yad Vashem, to which he has made large donations

Moshe Kantor also funded the World Holocaust Forum, which provided a platform for Putin to indulge his now familiar ‘anti-Nazi’ posturing.

Israel’s ‘Holocaust museum’ Yad Vashem has repeatedly accepted major donations from Putin’s favourite oligarchs, including not only Kantor but also Roman Abramovich who now faces ostracism in the UK for his close Kremlin ties but is still very welcome in Jerusalem.

Berlin court sets crazy timetable for Ursula Haverbeck, 93

(above left to right) Ursula Haverbeck, Rigolf Hennig and Lady Michèle Renouf

H&D readers will be familiar with the case of Ursula Haverbeck, the courageous German publisher and activist – now aged 93 – who has been subjected to repeated persecution by the German authorities for the ‘crime’ of asking questions about her own country’s history.

Former co-organiser of the Collegium Humanum which staged conferences and lectures featuring some of the greatest names in German academia, Ursula Haverbeck is herself a survivor of one of the most traumatic episodes in German history, having had to flee East Prussia as a 16-year-old when her country was invaded by Stalin’s brutal Asiatic hordes of the ‘Red Army’.

From 1992 to 2003 she founded and chaired the Verein Gedächtnisstätte (Memorial Sites Association) which aimed to build a suitable memorial to German civilian victims of the Second World War, and to end “the unjustified unilateral nature of the view of history”.

Since 2004 she has been repeatedly prosecuted under Germany’s notorious Volksverhetzung law which forbids rational discussion of alleged events now taken out of history and sacralised as the quasi-religion of ‘Holocaust remembrance’. It is forbidden in Germany to investigate whether, where and how the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers’ on the alleged orders of Adolf Hitler actually took place.

Following several convictions, Ursula Haverbeck was jailed in May 2018 at the age of 88 and remained incarcerated for more than two years. H&D‘s great comrade the late Richard Edmonds addressed a rally in Germany on Ursula’s 91st birthday in 2019 – click here for details.

H&D has just published a groundbreaking revisionist essay by assistant editor Peter Rushton, dedicated to Ursula Haverbeck and her fellow campaigners for free historical research Lady Michèle Renouf and Isabel Peralta. Click here for details.

At the age of 93 there are several further ‘criminal’ proceedings against her. (In Germany it’s common for several stages of appeal to take place before a jail sentence is actually served.)

Court hearings like other aspects of life have been affected by the pandemic, but the Berlin appeal court has now ordered that this 93-year-old lady must attend four days of hearings spread over three weeks, on March 18th, 21st and 25th, and April 4th 2022.

This necessarily involves either repeated travel from Frau Haverbeck’s home (more than 200 miles from Berlin) or a long stay in a Berlin hotel, which might not even be allowed under CoVID regulations.

Ursula Haverbeck at one of many court appearances with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath

There are strong differences of opinion among H&D readers about these CoVID regulations, so that aspect of the argument should be for the moment ignored. Even if one regards the German government’s CoVID measures as entirely justified, what surely cannot be justified is the continued persecution of a brave 93-year-old simply for asking questions about her own country’s history.

Frau Haverbeck’s alleged ‘crimes’ would of course be perfectly legal in the UK, and in the USA would be protected by constitutional rights.

The continued existence of the Volksverhetzung law and its use in this manner to silence dissent is a disgrace to a nominally ‘democratic’ nation. H&D‘s assistant editor remembers his arrest and interrogation by the East German communist secret police in 1987, when he was a young student. Today’s ‘democratic’ authorities in the Federal Republic have shown themselves to be no better.

Media hype assorted cranks and loons in effort to criminalise nationalism

Benjamin Hannam, the young police recruit arrested in his bedroom, whose Hollywood Nazi fantasies have been portrayed as ‘terrorism’ and led to his conviction last week.

During the last fortnight several criminal convictions in English courts have provided further ammunition for those seeking to restrict political freedoms in Britain.

The UK has not had anything approaching ‘free speech’ on racial matters since the first Race Relations Act in 1965, and as H&D has explained in several detailed articles over the years, these restrictions have been progressively tightened. This dishonest campaign by the political establishment has involved deliberately distorting the truth about serious crimes.

Of course most H&D readers would rightly regard the entire structure of race law as a sinister infringement of what were once traditional British freedoms, and as part of a concerted effort quite literally to change the face of Britain.

However this does not mean that we should regard everyone prosecuted under these laws (or the related extension of terrorism laws to encompass a range of non-violent if unwise political activities) as some sort of hero or heroine.

To do so – to campaign on behalf of everyone convicted under these laws as though they were all quite simply free speech martyrs – would be foolish and counter-productive: indeed it would be to play the enemy’s game.

For example, two of those recently convicted under the ‘terrorism’ laws were autistic children who had bought into the imagery of ‘nazism’ rather than anything substantial.

It really was pathetic to see national newspapers give front page treatment to the case of 22-year-old London police officer Benjamin Hannam, who as a confused teenager with a Jewish step-grandfather and a Muslim girlfriend had briefly been involved with the now-defunct National Action and one of its offshoots.

He had also downloaded the ‘manifesto’ of a real terrorist maniac, Anders Breivik, and in common with several of his ilk seemed to view Breivik – an ultra-Zionist whose beliefs and actions were the very antithesis of national socialism – as some kind of ‘nazi’ / ‘fascist’ comrade.

Anders Breivik, the Zionist fanatic whose ‘racist’ murder spree has led him to be regarded as some sort of ‘nazi’ / ‘fascist’ hero by fools on the fringes of our movement

There are one or two people on the fringes of our movement who indulge such dangerous nonsense, and it’s time for responsible racial nationalists, national socialists, historical revisionists – indeed all of those involved in the broad campaign for the rescue of historical truth and national, racial, and cultural integrity – to draw the line.

Racial nationalism is not the mindless promotion of hatred, and racial nationalists are the very opposite of nihilistic terrorists. National Socialism is not Hollywood nazism or psychotic satanism. Historical revisionism is not a platform for crank conspiracy theory or vacuous Jew-baiting.

There is serious work underway – led by individuals with decades of experience as well as new recruits of high calibre – to defend serious racial nationalist politics and historical revisionist work in post-pandemic and post-Brexit Britain.

We are not going to be derailed by fantasists, cranks, or enemy informants – nor by those thousands of miles away who issue grand proclamations while utterly ignorant of the personalities and realities involved.

Thought criminals released from jail sentences in Germany

Today the German attorney Sylvia Stolz was due for release having served an 18 month prison sentence in Germany for the ‘crime’ of having made a speech about German history and the principles underlying the search for historical truth.

(above left to right) Sylvia Stolz at the Schaefer trial in Munich in 2018 with Wolfram Nahrath (attorney for Monika Schaefer and later for Lady Renouf); Frank Miksch (attorney for Alfred Schaefer); Alfred Schaefer; and Lady Michèle Renouf.

First jailed in 2008 (and banned from legal practice) for her words in defence of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz spoke at a conference of the Anti-Censorship Coalition, held in the Swiss town of Chur in 2012.

Background on this story is at the blog recently set up by H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton to report on the trial of Lady Michèle Renouf on similar charges of volksverhetzung – the German equivalent of our race laws, which unlike our law criminalises historical and scientific research into the alleged ‘holocaust’ of European Jewry during the Second World War.

Horst Mahler and Ursula Haverbeck celebrate their release from German jails last week

The release of Sylvia Stolz follows last week’s release of two of Germany’s veteran campaigners for historical truth and justice, 84-year-old Horst Mahler and 92-year-old Ursula Haverbeck.

The outside world finds it incredible that people of this age should be jailed for anything – still more incredible that their ‘crimes’ were political: daring to question orthodox versions of mid-20th century European history.

Horst Mahler had been prosecuted for several political offences since 2003, and had been in a Brandenburg prison since June 2017, having earlier been jailed from 2009 to 2015. During his sentence he has suffered increasing ill health including the amputation of both legs.

Ursula Haverbeck had been imprisoned for two and a half years since May 2018 and has faced repeated trials after daring to ask questions of the German authorities about what she terms “the biggest and most persistent lie in history” – the alleged ‘holocaust’ of European Jewry.

Alfred Schaefer remains incarcerated for similar offences following his conviction in 2018 for having posted online videos ‘denying the Holocaust’.

The outside world continues to wonder what sort of historical truth gets turned into an unchallengeable theological dogma and has to be defended by an edifice of laws criminalising those who dare challenge it.

Wisconsin liberal attacked by BLM mob

Calhoun’s statue removed on the order of Charleston city authorities

Overnight yet another historic American statue came down: this time the victim was former Vice-President John Calhoun (1782-1850) whose statue had stood in downtown Charleston, South Carolina since 1896.

Meanwhile in another state capital a thousand miles north of Charleston, a liberal state senator was attacked by ‘Black Lives Matter’ rioters in Madison, Wisconsin.

State Senator Tim Carpenter, a 60-year-old LGBT etc activist, was punched and kicked by the mob when he photographed them. The rioters had earlier destroyed another two statues, including one of an anti-slavery activist, Col. Hans Christian Heg.

Senator Carpenter might now realise that these riots are not ‘political’ in the normal, civilised sense of the word. His crime (and that of Col. Heg) was simply to be White.

The paradox of course is that many of the rioters are themselves White, but they are determined to destroy their civilisation in an orgy of self-hatred.

Good news from the courts!

Long delayed justice was achieved yesterday for Lawrence Burns, who had been imprisoned since January for the ‘crime’ of attending last November’s National Front’s Remembrance Day march to the cenotaph in memory of Britain’s war dead. (This is misleadingly described by a local Cambridge journalist as a “National Front rally”.)

This was deemed a punishable offence because Mr Burns was under a ‘Criminal Behaviour Order’ (CBO), despite having been released at the end of an earlier prison sentence.

A CBO means that one is obliged to notify the authorities before attending even a perfectly lawful and respectable political event.

The good news is that after representations by Mr Burns’s barrister Adrian Davies, Judge Jonathan Cooper at Cambridge Crown Court agreed yesterday to impose a sentence that means in practice Mr Burns will be immediately released from Peterborough prison.

A further report on this case will be published by H&D soon.

Nationalists banned from Facebook

The following is a statement by long-standing nationalist activist Richard Edmonds, taken from from the National Front web-site:

Richard Edmonds – a Directorate member of the National Front, a party now banned from Facebook

The private company that manages the social-media site Facebook, has just announced that the National Front and its chairman, Tony Martin, together with a number of other nationalist spokespersons and nationalist organisations, BNP, etc. have been banned from the social-media platform.

The pretext given by Facebook is that the Nationalists named and their organisations have spread “hatred”, and have proclaimed “a violent and hateful mission.” This is all lies. It has always been a criminal offence to incite violence and for the last forty years, ever since the Race Act, it has been a criminal offence to promote racial hatred. If any of the individuals named were guilty of either offence then they would have been charged by the judicial authorities, which is not the case. And if any of the nationalist organisations, NF, BNP, etc, had been found to promote violence then they would have been closed down as was National Action, But none of the organisations named by Facebook have been closed down by the Authorities.

Tony Martin (right) – the NF Chairman now banned from Facebook – at a recent event with former chairman Andrew Brons (centre) and present deputy chairman Jordan Pont (left),

This action by the private company which owns and manages Facebook, and which has a near monopoly of the social-media, represents a tyranny answerable to nobody. The older ones of us can remember a time when we were told that Britain fought two world wars to guarantee Freedom of Speech. Not any more.

But friends, take heart. This banning is a form of back-handed compliment. Clearly it is recognised that Nationalists and only Nationalists are the true and only opposition to Mass-immigration and to the multi-criminal nightmare-society being forced onto us.

H&D comments:

Apart from the NF and BNP, Facebook have also banned (yet again) former BNP leader Nick Griffin, and his former young friend Paul Golding (now leader of the tiny Britain First group), and Paul’s former girlfriend/deputy leader Jayda Fransen; Paul Ray, a founder member of the a nut-group called Knights Templar International; former fundraiser for the BNP and Britain First Jim Dowson; Jack Renshaw, a former BNP Youth leader, who was linked to the proscribed NS Youth organisation National Action (although how young Jack can get onto Facebook to chat to his young friends from solitary confinement in HMP Belmarsh is not known!) and last but surely not least former BNP member and EDL leader Steven Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

Nick Griffin modelling Knight Templar merchandise – both Griffin and the Knights Templar have now been banned from Facebook, whose policies mirror Griffin’s own attempts to silence racial nationalists more than a decade ago.

All very sad – right? But why on earth should this come as a shock to nationalists? Facebook is well and truly part (and a big part at that) of the liberal, multi-racial liberal establishment, who are our enemies, they are against everything we stand for and hold dear, so why would they give us a platform on THEIR social-media?

Although most nationalists will probably not agree with us now, these bans may be a good thing – in the long term anyway – if they get our young (and not so young) would-be activists away from their bedrooms and their computers, laptops and smart phones, where they spend so much time on social-media, talking to people who all agree with them anyway, and back onto the streets to do some real political work. Work rebuilding the former nationalist strongholds on the council estates of Burnley, Blackburn, Stoke, Sandwell, Essex and many others, which Griffin and co destroyed ten years ago.

One last interesting point regarding Facebook’s statement of the bans on British nationalists – and I quote:
“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence. The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram. Posts and other content which expresses praise or support for these figures and groups will also be banned. Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our community standards.”

If this is the case, then why has Facebook not banned the pages of Sinn Fein – the political wing of the terrorist IRA? Or the Irish Republican Socialist Party – the political wing of the terrorist INLA who murdered Tory MP Airey Neave amongst many others; the 32 County Sovereignty Movement – the political wing of the terrorist group Real IRA – and dozens of other Irish Republican/Marxist hate groups?

Members of the Real IRA – whose political front the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not banned from Facebook

Why indeed, we may well ask. These are real hate groups – groups who hate everything British and English. Groups who hate with a passion our Ulster-Scots cousins and have carried out a murderous campaign against them and us since the late 1960s. These are hate groups who still carry out real acts of violence (as was seen in Londonderry yesterday).

Yet just like with the many hateful Wahhabi Muslim / Jihadist pages that Facebook lets continue without any problem, they refuse to ban any of these Irish Republican terror groups. It makes you think, don’t it.

German government on the brink over immigration policy – is this the end for Merkel?

Angela Merkel (left) is at odds with her own interior minister Horst Seehofer (right) over immigration policy in a row that could transform European politics.

Germany’s coalition government is on the verge of collapse due to serious splits over immigration policy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel took the disastrous decision in 2015 to admit more than a million refugees in what amounted to an ‘open border’ policy. Now her own interior minister (equivalent to a British Home Secretary) is threatening to resign.

This is especially serious because the minister concerned (Horst Seehofer) leads the Bavarian conservative party CSU, which has been allied to Merkel’s CDU for the entire history of the German Federal Republic: all the way back to 1945.

Seehofer’s immediate concern is so-called “secondary migration”, by which immigrants to one EU country then move to another EU country. Understandably he wants Germany to have control of its own borders.

Merkel tried last week to reach a deal with other EU leaders which would satisfy her anti-immigration critics, both among her own government allies and in the general population, but she seems to have failed.

If Seehofer’s CSU splits from the CDU, it will be the most serious change in Western European politics since the Second World War – a much bigger deal than Brexit – and might give a tremendous boost to plans for a continent-wide alliance of anti-immigration parties, now being promoted by Italy’s deputy prime minister and interior minister Matteo Salvini.

(July 3rd update: Seehofer and Merkel seemed to have patched up a deal to avoid an immediate split in the government, but the big issues remain unresolved and the latest deal is causing a fresh immigration row with Austria.)

Meanwhile demonstrations have been held for the last two weekends in the cities of Hamm and Nuremberg against the imprisonment of 89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for the opinion crime of ‘Holocaust denial’. Mrs Haverbeck dared to question the establishment’s line on 1940s history – the very same historical myths that underpinned the postwar political consensus which is now collapsing.

The most recent protest march last Saturday (see below) was attended by veteran British nationalist and campaigner for historical truth Richard Edmonds, whose speech begins at 25:28 in the first video below.

This week the latest Orwellian trial will take place in Germany, featuring Canadian-German Alfred Schaefer and his sister, violinist Monika Schaefer, a Canadian citizen who has been imprisoned since January awaiting trial for the ‘crime’ of uploading a ‘Holocaust denial’ video to YouTube.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers