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.

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

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!

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”.

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.

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”.

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.

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

Prosecutor seeks 12-year prison term for leading Spanish nationalist

Prosecutors in Barcelona are demanding a total of twelve years imprisonment for the leading nationalist activist, author and publisher Pedro Varela in the latest sign that Spain is on the frontline of the struggle for European civilisation and real history.

Varela (now 64) has for decades been among the most courageous and intelligent racial nationalists in Europe, and has already faced years of legal persecution. For fifteen years during Spain’s transition to ‘democracy’ following the death of the country’s military leader General Franco, Varela was president of CEDADE (‘Spanish Circle of Friends of Europe’) which had close international links with defenders of the true Europe including the Tyndall-era BNP.

During the 1990s the first BNP delegation to the annual November commemorations for Franco and Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera – a delegation which included H&D‘s assistant editor – visited CEDADE’s Madrid office, and even then Pedro Varela was in jail (that time in Vienna, where he was eventually acquitted).

CEDADE was officially dissolved in 1993, but Pedro Varela continued operating the Europa bookshop in Barcelona and associated publishing houses. Meetings at the bookshop have been addressed by guest speakers from across our movement, including Lady Michèle Renouf and the late Richard Edmonds.

After a conviction in 2008 for “justifying genocide”, Varela spent time in prison between 2010 and 2012. In 2015 he addressed a meeting of the London Forum organised by Jez Turner, and was given the ‘scandal’ treatment by the Mail on Sunday.

A Barcelona court in 2016 ordered the closure of the bookshop which was searched by a squad from Spain’s political police: these latest charges are a delayed outcome of those raids, but also reflect a new hardening of Spain’s left-wing government, determined to construct an undeniable ‘official history’.

We are sure that H&D readers will support Pedro Varela and our Spanish comrades in every possible way as the battle for real European history moves into a new and more intense phase. Both here and in our magazine, we shall soon have major updates on that battle.

Remembering Dresden – 77 years after the terror bombing

77 years ago today the RAF and USAAF began their terror-bombing of the historic city of Dresden, incinerating countless civilians including many women and children who were fleeing the advance of Stalin’s Red Army.

RAF Wing Commander Hubert Raymond Allen wrote:
“The final phase of Bomber Command’s operations was far and away the worst. Traditional British chivalry and the use of minimum force in war was to become a mockery and the outrages perpetrated by the bombers will be remembered a thousand years hence.”

Four years ago Lady Michèle Renouf was arrested for her impromptu speech at the 2018 Dresden Commemoration. As reported in H&D, Dresden prosecutors eventually abandoned Lady Renouf’s scheduled trial in October 2020, fearing embarrassment in front of the international press.

This afternoon German patriots and international guests will gather for the annual memorial march in tribute to those who died on 13th-14th March 1945.

We are sorry that for unavoidable reasons we cannot join the Dresden Commemoration today alongside our German friends and international delegates. However be assured that your British comrades will be thinking of you today and remembering the horror and shame that was brought on our nation 77 years ago. We look forward to standing together with our German and other European comrades in the continuing struggle for the True Europe.

A Merry White Christmas to all H&D readers

The Heritage and Destiny team wishes all readers a very Merry Christmas!

And as a present to new readers we have made available an online version of a major historical investigation previously published in two parts in our magazine during 2020.

Peter Rushton opens the files to uncover 40 Years of Propaganda Lies.

• How the same propaganda agent – János Békessy alias Hans Habe – was used against Adolf Hitler in 1932 and David Irving in the 1960s and ’70s.
• How Békessy’s lies continue to be recycled in the 21st century.
• How Britain’s wartime propaganda and dirty tricks department adapted to the Cold War.
• How the British establishment feared David Irving’s researches into the ‘accidental’ death in Gibraltar of Poland’s wartime commander General Sikorski.
• How a National Theatre production was suppressed.

Click here to read this major investigation of treachery, lies and possibly murder, now free to read online – for when you get tired of turkey and Christmas pudding, and your football team’s Boxing Day match has been cancelled by CoVID!

If you need to buy a last minute present for a comrade, click here to buy an H&D subscription and/or back copies!

We look forward to seeing you all again after the festive season. Issue 106 of Heritage and Destiny will be published in the first week of January.

H&D target of new legal crackdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry Hafenmayer – champion of German freedom – dies aged 48

Two very different wings of the anti-Islam movement

and

Did ‘racism’ win on penalties?

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

Frank Walsh 1925-2020

Veteran campaigner Frank Walsh – probably H&D‘s oldest reader – died on 19th November aged 95. Frank was an indefatigable activist well into his tenth decade, travelling vast distances from his home near Wimbledon, South London, to attend and often speak at events for a wide range of racial nationalist parties and movements.

Whether it was a Forgotten British Heroes event in Bristol marking the sacrifice of British servicemen who fought Zionist terrorism in Palestine, or a Heritage and Destiny conference in Preston – Frank would travel hundreds of miles to campaign for justice and racial solidarity.

A loyal supporter of the late Lady Birdwood, in more recent years Frank was a regular at Hyde Park’s world-famous ‘Speaker’s Corner’, which until recently was one of the few remaining bastions of free speech.

Unafraid of the ultra-violent ‘anti-fascist’ movement, Frank was several times arrested and sent back to London after one-man demonstrations at TUC and Labour Party conferences. H&D‘s assistant editor remembers two such confrontations in particular: outside the Oxford Union in 2007, where Frank braved a vast ‘anti-fascist’ mob who were seeking to prevent David Irving from addressing the Oxford Union; and a few years later in Leeds, where he travelled all the way from London to attend a BPP demonstration outside an HMV record shop, campaigning against violent, anti-White lyrics on CDs.

Frank also travelled back to his native Preston at least three times to attend the annual John Tyndall Memorial Meeting – staying over twice at the H&D editor’s home in Ribbleton and revisiting parts of the city he remembered from his pre-war childhood.

Our editor Mark Cotterill can remember after the first JTMM Frank attended he refused to join most of the attendees afterwards, who had gone to eat in a local Indian restaurant (as Frank refused to eat “foreign food”) just down the road from the 55th Division Club. Frank walked up and down Preston high street, for over half an hour looking for an “English” fish & chip shop or something similar where he could buy/eat some “English” food. But it was to no avail as there were no longer any “English” food outlets left in city centre Preston: he was about ten years too late! So poor Frank had to bite his tongue and join us (traitors!) in the Indian restaurant after all. Thankfully the manager, who was a good friend of the H&D editor, could see the funny side and fixed Frank up with a cheese omelette and chips – so he would not have to eat the “foreign food”.

Frank Walsh was among the last of the old Englishmen with adult memories of White Britain, and who to the end rejected the hypocritical treachery of our leaders with their twisted talk of diversity (which in fact means a multiracial uniformity). While that multiracial tyranny extends its grip for now, it won’t last for ever. After Frank Walsh’s lifelong dedication to our cause we can say with the poet Keats:

And other spirits there are standing apart
Upon the forehead of the age to come;
These, these will give the world another heart,
And other pulses. Hear ye not the hum
Of mighty workings?—————
Listen awhile ye nations, and be dumb.

Veteran Union Movement activist Bill Baillie from South London writes:

Frank was born in Preston, Lancashire in 1925 and died in London on 19th November this year. He was a gentleman, a patriot and a scholar who fought against plutocracy to the bitter end.

Frank’s father was badly wounded in the First World War and he was brought up in children’s homes in the Fishwick and Deepdale areas of Preston. He joined the Merchant Navy at the age of 14 and volunteered for the army in 1943. He was known as the King of London’s Speaker’s Corner where he spoke fearlessly for many years despite a Red ban on patriotic speakers. His Patriotic People’s Power Party attempted to unite the producers, the common people, against the parasites.

His unique blog was updated monthly until March 2019, it was a fascinating mixture of graphic art, prose, poetry, and Social Credit.

We do not know what arrangements Frank made for his archives. He certainly had many boxes of magazines and correspondence. When my old friend Carl Harley died earlier this year, without leaving a will, he was buried by the local authority and his books and magazines were disposed of. If you are an old fascist with one foot in the grave, like myself, I urge you to leave clear instructions or your treasured collection will end up in a skip.

Rest in peace old comrade. I shall miss your stoicism, your coffee and your conversation, and your sparkling eyes.

Secret propaganda unit plotted against John Hume and David Irving

A new article in the leftwing Irish magazine Village has alleged that the top secret British propaganda unit IRD (the Information Research Department) conspired against John Hume, the moderate Irish nationalist and civil rights activist who died on August 3rd this year.

The article names Hugh Mooney, a former Irish Times sub-editor, and his boss in London, IRD’s Special Operations Adviser Hans Welser.

Coincidentally, H&D has just published a two-part article naming Hans Welser as one of the organisers of a propaganda campaign against the British historian David Irving during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Welser began his propaganda career with the wartime Political Warfare Executive, responsible for numerous ‘dirty tricks’ and inventions designed to discredit and demoralise Germany, Italy and Japan during the Second World War.

Aspects of Britain’s secret wars – and their long-term consequences – are only now becoming partially exposed thanks to the release of long-secret official documents.

Issues 96 and 97 of H&D explore aspects of the secret propaganda war, including the role of Hans Welser. Click here to order back copies.

Today’s coup at Westminster: in whose interests?

An unprecedented coup at Westminster today saw the blocking of the government’s preferred candidate to chair the super-sensitive Intelligence and Security Committee.

Former minister Chris Grayling was known to be the Prime Minister’s choice, but one Conservative MP on the committee – Dr Julian Lewis – broke ranks, voting alongside Labour and SNP members to instal himself as chairman.

He was immediately expelled from the Conservative parliamentary party for this conspiracy, having “worked with Labour and other opposition MPs for his own advantage.”

The Intelligence and Security Committee scrutinises MI5, MI6, GCHQ and other intelligence and security agencies. It was formed in 1994 as part of a series of reforms, which included the partial opening of historical documents relating to such matters.

While in one sense it is laudable for such a committee to assert its independence from government, Dr Lewis’s appointment might raise eyebrows in some quarters.

H&D readers might remember Dr Lewis best for his public resignation as a life member of the Oxford Union in November 2007, in protest at the Union’s invitation to historian David Irving and then BNP leader Nick Griffin.

In 2017 under the headline “Influential MPs to look out for”, the Jewish Chronicle analysed appointments to Westminster committees in terms of whether they were good news for “supporters of Israel”, highlighting Dr Lewis’s success in becoming chairman of the Commons Defence Committee.

Similarly in 2010 the Jewish Chronicle listed Dr Lewis’s re-election under the sub-heading “pro-Israel wins seal a good day”.

In February this year, Dr Lewis hosted a meeting at Westminster for the hardline Zionist Henry Jackson Society.